What holiday songs do you enjoy or hate? If you have ever worked in retail during the holiday season, then you might hate all of them. After all, if you are forced to hear the same holiday songs over and over for an entire work shift, then you might not be so jolly. This blogger knows from experience.
I avoid hearing holiday songs when I can. They make want to put my hands in the air and yell “AAUGGHH!!” the way that Charlie Brown does when Lucy freaks him out.
Alas, I can’t avoid holiday songs whenever I attend church services. One particular church holiday song puts me into Charlie-Brown mode. That song is The First Noel, which originated in the Cornwall region of England sometime prior to year 1823, which is when the song was first published. The song in its modern form is horrible from a poetic perspective.
The original Cornish version isn’t bad. Here is its first stanza as recorded in the Cornish Songbook:
“O well, O well, the Angels did say
To shepherds there in the fields did lay;
Late in the night a-folding their sheep,
A winter’s night, both cold and bleak.
O well, O well, O well, O well,
Born is the King of Israel.”
Now, here is the modern version of the same stanza:
“The first Noel the angel did say
Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay;
In fields where they lay, keeping their sheep,
On a cold winter’s night that was so deep.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel,
Born is the King of Israel.”
The modern version is comprised of lazy poetry. That is if it is supposed to be poetry.
A cold winter’s night that was so deep? Seriously? How can a night be deep?
I suppose that the night could have been deep if the shepherds were the Saracens who guarded Robin of Loxley in the film Robin Hood: Men in Tights. One of those guards did find himself in something deep:
I could ask the pastor of my new church
to keep The First Noel out of the church’s worship service. However, he might not have time for my request. He is busy portraying Jim Carrey’s version of the Grinch who stole Christmas.
Yes, seriously.
Granted, the pastor does a decent job, and he certainly looks better than the 49-year-old bearded man in my church who is portraying little Cindy Lou Who.
Yes, seriously.
So, a moment may come during a church service when I impersonate Charlie Brown.
What with the Grinch and a bearded Cindy Lou Who leading the church service, my Charlie Brown impersonation would fit right in.
Oh, speaking of the Grinch, did you know that stealing Christmas isn’t the only thing that he did?
As it turns out, the Grinch really likes Christmas now. In fact, he found a way to personally profit from Christmas:
Other critters who have profited from Christmas are three talking chipmunks who made their Christmas singing debut in 1958. Alvin, Simon and Theodore are still making records. Here is their latest album:
If that album isn’t your idea of a Christmas gift, then here is something that might be:
Instead of fighting over parking spots at retail stores, this blogger prefers to spend the holiday season watching a live holiday performance such as this one:
I also prefer to watch the classic holiday films that natives of planet Melmac produced, such as
Theodor Seuss Geisel gave the world The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. I wish that he had also given us older adults something more useful to us, such as
President-elect Donald Trump is about to resume a second term as president with such a slim GOP majority in the House of Representatives that it offers the party little if any room for error.
Republicans deliriously reveling about their supposed “huge election mandate” may want to keep a lid on such unabashed glee. As final results are being tabulated from California, the party appears to have the smallest House majority in more than a century.
Republican Rep. Michelle Steel lost her Orange County seat to Army vet Derek Tran, while as of this writing Rep. John Duarte narrowly trails Democratic challenger Adam Gray in his Fresno-area district.
If Duarte loses his race, Republicans would control nine of 52 House seats in California. Gerrymandering in California, New York (19–7 Democratic to GOP seats), Illinois (14–3), and Massachusetts (9–0) means four states will deliver 85 of the Democratic’s 215 seats in the next Congress.
While Republican leaders are likely breathing some small sigh of relief at remaining in the majority, the numbers are cause for alarm. Due to its ever-decreasing small majority, the GOP has been unable to ratify its own partisan bills into law, which House Democrats were powerless to stop.
Notably, come January, three prominent GOP figures are out. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida resigned last week and won’t return to the house; Rep. Mike Waltz of Florida vacating his seat to join Donald Trump’s White House team; and Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York is relinquishing her position to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Once it’s all said in done, Republicans could begin the next Congress with just a one-seat majority.
In the immediate days after the 2024 election, House Speaker Mike Johnson supposedly pleaded with Trump to cease recruiting too aggressively from his House conference for administration positions given this fact.
“It’s a great problem to have. We have an embarrassment of riches in the House Republican Congress. Lots of talented people who are very attuned to the America First agenda, and they can serve the country well in other capacities. But I’ve told President Trump, enough already, give me some relief. I have to maintain this majority. And he understands that, of course, we’ve been talking about it almost hourly every day,” Johnson added.
I bet they have.
One message that many conservatives have failed to grasp is that, while the majority of voters who cast ballots did so for the Trump–Vance ticket, such support for Republicans is conditional at best. The party fared better in the Senate, gaining three seats, but they won each by narrow margins. In fact, the party lost races in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada despite party operatives believing such contests to be winnable.
Now that they have complete control, Republicans have limited time to get things accomplished. If congressional history is any indication, the party is likely to lose House control in 2026, and the partisan Senate map is shaping up to be an arduous one for them. Voters tend to stay home or refrain from voting in non-presidential election years, especially when Trump isn’t on the ballot. The window for opportunity and accomplishment is radically narrow. Members’ attention turn to political survival in 2026.
Some of us ardent political junkies will avidly watch and wait to see if House Republicans work together or remain a fragmented group of political factions. Yes, the menacing Matt Gaetz will no longer be a factor, but other right-wing carnival barkers are still present to wreak political havoc and point fingers.
Can Donald Trump and Speaker Johnson keep their subjects in line? Time will tell, but factionalism will mean the end of a functioning majority, a pyrrhic victory at best and guaranteed defeat in 2026.
Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.
That’s the question my collaborators and I asked over 1,000 people on social media as part of a broader research project on Twitter migration
. Responses ranged from the profane to the poetic, but one common theme was that despite its significant flaws, Twitter at its best was truly great … until it wasn’t.
“The world is a better place for it having existed, and a better place now that it’s gone.”
“It takes so little to destroy so much.”
“I will miss it for what it could be in its best moments, but I will be happy that we can finally move on to healthier spaces.”
For many, it was time to leave in the hopes of finding greener pastures.
Since Elon Musk purchased Twitter, now branded as X, in October 2022, there have been reports of mass migration from the platform, and much ink was spilled – including some by me
, a researcher
who studies online communities – speculating where those users might land.
Bluesky was created in 2019 as a research project within Twitter led by then-CEO Jack Dorsey. It eventually severed ties with Twitter and became an independent company following Musk’s acquisition. The goal with Bluesky was to build a decentralized standard for social media
that Twitter could eventually adopt. In that way, Bluesky is comparable to Mastodon in that they both allow for the creation of different servers that interact, and users can move their data and network between servers.
But what does all this mean for your experience on Bluesky? If you are confused by – or just don’t care about – centralized versus decentralized social media, Bluesky won’t seem very different. It looks and feels a lot like Twitter. Nearly all of Bluesky currently operates from a single server, bsky.social, which means that you don’t have to choose a server when you sign up and your experience is contained there. Though Bluesky provides the option for users to host their own server
and therefore store and control their own data, most users will experience what they’re accustomed to on traditional, centralized social media.
A tech analyst explains how Bluesky began and how it’s gaining momentum.
My previous research on platform migration
revealed how leaving a platform requires both a compelling reason and an immediate viable alternative. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was a compelling reason for many users, and there have been a number of policy, design and cultural changes since that have compelled even more users to jump ship.
As for an immediate alternative in November 2022, Mastodon had a significant head start because Bluesky hadn’t launched, and when it did in February 2023 it remained invitation-only for about a year. Threads didn’t launch until July 2023. Though Mastodon has a very dedicated user base, particularly among people who share a commitment to decentralization and user autonomy, there are a number of factors that have limited widespread adoption.
My colleagues and I found that even among those on Mastodon, knowing how to find and join a specific server was the biggest challenge
, and this has been enough of a barrier to keep many people off the social network entirely. Research on the migration of “Academic Twitter,” a broad community of academics connected on Twitter, also revealed that the decentralized structure of Mastodon created challenges
for community building and sustained user engagement.
Bluesky’s moment
Meanwhile, the U.S. election in November seems to have been the tipping point
as a compelling reason to leave for many X users, along with terms of service changes
regarding AI training. And it seems that at this moment there are other different “immediate viable alternatives.”
Perhaps Bluesky’s growth is particularly impressive – and therefore threatening to Meta – because it occurred essentially by word of mouth. In contrast, Threads has an absolutely enormous advertising platform: Instagram. Not only can Threads users simply use their existing Instagram accounts, but Meta has also started pushing Threads posts to Instagram.
Bluesky COO Rose Wang answers questions about the company’s explosive growth.
So when considering these three major Twitter alternatives – Mastodon, Bluesky and Threads – Bluesky’s moment actually makes a lot of sense to me. It feels less corporate than Meta’s Threads, and so it represents an alternative to Big Tech platforms controlled by billionaires. It also appeals to people who believe in the vision of decentralized social media or who want the option to control their data.
But at the same time, the user experience is nearly identical to familiar, traditional social media, and it addresses some of the challenges identified with Mastodon, such as the learning curve for choosing a server. A surge in creation and use of starter packs on Bluesky
– curated lists of people to follow – have also accelerated the creation of community and social networks. And the sudden buzz around the platform all at once has created momentum for entire former Twitter communities, such as Academic Twitter
, to partially reconstitute themselves.
These platforms all provide something different, with different communities and priorities, and none will be the best option for everyone. Moreover, as Bluesky continues to grow, it will inevitably face many of the same problems that Twitter did even when the platform was perceived as being at its greatest.
But for those who were hoping to “move on to healthier spaces” after attending Twitter’s funeral, there are multiple doors open for them.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 6, 2024, upheld a law
requiring TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, to sell the video app by Jan. 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban on the app. The court rebuffed TikTok’s claim that the law violates its First Amendment rights.
The appeals court ruling is the latest development in a lengthy saga over the fate of an app that is widely popular, especially among young Americans, but that many politicians in Washington say is a security risk
.
The ruling is unlikely to be the end of the story. TikTok is expected to appeal the case
to the U.S. Supreme Court, though the court could refuse to hear the appeal. President-elect Donald Trump has reversed his earlier support for banning the app under its current ownership and stated during his 2024 presidential campaign that he would “save” the app
, though he has not said how he would attempt to do so.
But why is TikTok controversial? Are the claims of it being a national security risk valid? And what will the case mean for free speech? The Conversation’s contributors have been on hand to answer these questions.
1. An agent of the Chinese state?
Politicians who want to ban TikTok, or at least sever its links to China, fear that the app provides a way for the Chinese Communist Party to influence Americans or use their data for malicious purposes. But how much influence does the Chinese government have at TikTok? That question is addressed by Shaomin Li
, a scholar of China’s political economy and business at Old Dominion University.
Li explains that the relationship between TikTok, ByteDance and the Chinese Communist Party is nuanced
– it isn’t simply a matter of officials in Beijing telling ByteDance to jump and the parent company dictating how high its subsidiary will leap. Rather, as with all companies in China, employees are under certain obligations when it comes to advancing national interests. In China, private enterprises, such as ByteDance, operate as joint ventures with the state.
“Regardless of whether ByteDance has formal ties with the party, there will be the tacit understanding that the management is working for two bosses: the investors of the company and, more importantly, their political overseers that represent the party,” Li writes. “But most importantly, when the interests of the two bosses conflict, the party trumps.”
2. Exploiting user data
The risks TikTok poses to U.S. users are similar to the risks posed by many popular apps, principally that the app collects data about you. That data, which includes contact information and website tracking, plus all data you post and messages you send through the app, is available to use or misuse by ByteDance and any other entity that has or gains access to it.
Iowa State University cybersecurity researcher Doug Jacobson
writes that U.S. officials and lawmakers are concerned that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok user data
to spy on U.S. citizens. Government hackers could use the TikTok data to trick users into revealing more personal information.
But if the goal is to counter Chinese hackers, banning TikTok might prove too little, too late. “By some estimates, the Chinese government has already collected personal information on at least 80% of the U.S. population via various means,” Jacobson writes. “The Chinese government – along with anyone else with money – also has access to the large market for personal data.”
3. The security risks of a ban
Banning TikTok could also make U.S. users more vulnerable to hackers of all stripes. Rochester Institute of Technology computer security expert Robert Olson
writes that many of the more than 100 million U.S. TikTok users could try to get around a ban on the app, with negative consequences for their digital safety
.
If TikTok ends up banned from Apple’s and Google’s app stores, users could try to access the app elsewhere via sideloading. This practice of getting around Apple and Google app stores leaves users vulnerable to malware posing as the TikTok app. TikTok users might also be motivated to circumvent Apple and Google security controls in order to keep the app installed, a move that would make users’ phones more vulnerable.
“I find it unlikely that a TikTok ban would be technologically enforceable,” Olson writes. “This … legislation – aimed at improving cybersecurity – could motivate users to engage in riskier digital behavior.”
4. First Amendment concerns
In its legal challenge to the U.S. government, ByteDance claims the government is violating its First Amendment rights. Technology law scholars Anupam Chander
of Georgetown University and Gautam Hans
of Cornell University write that ByteDance has grounds for its claim
, and that the implications go beyond this case.
TikTok is a publisher, an online publisher of users’ videos. Forcing ByteDance to divest TikTok is a form of prior restraint – the government preventing speech before it occurs.
“By forcing the sale of TikTok to an entity without ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Congress’ intent with the law is to change the nature of the platform,” they write. “That kind of government action implicates the core concerns that the First Amendment was designed to protect against: government interference in the speech of private parties.”
5. What about the others?
Security and legal issues aside, the forced sale to a U.S.-based company or ban of TikTok in the United States is a questionable approach to solving the problems
the law aims to address: potential Chinese government influence in the U.S., harm to teens, and data privacy violations, writes Arizona State media scholar Sarah Florini
.
The Chinese government – and other U.S. adversaries – has long used social media apps owned by U.S. companies to attempt to influence American public opinion. TikTok is hardly alone in posing harm to teens, as the Facebook whistleblower case amply demonstrated
. And vast amounts of Americans’ personal data are already available to any buyer on the open and black markets.
“Concerns about TikTok are not unfounded, but they are also not unique. Each threat posed by TikTok has also been posed by U.S.-based social media for over a decade,” Florini writes.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on Sept. 16, 2024.
Was an insurance CEO assassinated over denied claims?
Good afternoon from Reykjavik. Today’s blog is late because I wanted to see some of Iceland while the sun was still out. There are only five hours of sunlight at this time of year in Reykjavik.
I don’t cheer over someone’s death, though there are times when I don’t mourn. This isn’t one of them.
I feel bad for Brian Thompson, who was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, the largest private insurer in the nation, who was shot IN THE BACK outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown New York City this Wednesday. I know that neighborhood. I have stayed in a hotel just a few blocks over. No motive for the shooting has been cited yet though there were cryptic messages on shell casings saying “deny,” “defend,” and “depose,” words used by opponents of the insurance industry. The words are also in the title of a book, Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.
Thompson had a wife and two sons.
Many speculate this was a former employee or policyholder, or close to a policyholder, who shot Thompson.
This was a preplanned killing as surveillance shows that the suspect waited outside for Thompson who was s speaking at an investors conference. The killer targeted Thompson and knew who he was. Thompson’s wife said they have been receiving death threats.
A lot of people on social media are cheering for the assassin, with many describing him as “hot” and offering their homes to hide in as police pursue him. The lack of sympathy and mockery comes from the fact that UnitedHealthcare denies 32 percent of all in-network claims relating to individual health insurance plans, which is twice the industry average.
Others posted headlines reporting that UnitedHealthcare has used an allegedly faulty AI program to deny claims.
University of Virginia historian David Austin Walsh posted on X/Twitter, “It’s actually kind of touching that the one thing that can bring together our fractious and disunited country is celebrating the assassination of a health insurance CEO,” I wouldn’t say it’s touching.
A lawsuit was filed this year against UnitedHealthcare’s parent company, UnitedHealth Group, naming Thompson and colleagues with accusations they sold $120 million of their UnitedHealth shares after learning of a U.S. Justice Department antitrust investigation of the company, but before the probe became public. Thompson’s salary was $10 million a year.
Most of the comments have been nonpartisan except for a Fox News host claiming the cops are too busy to find Thompson’s assassin because they’re too busy dealing with “illegal immigrants,” or the guy on Bluesky who called me a “libtard low testosterone soy beta male” and “typical soft coward white dude for Harris.” That’s the second time over the past week I’ve been called “libtard.” I thought they stopped using it, which mocks the handicapped, after learning it’s an immediate loss in any debate. Maybe Trump’s victory (sic) brought it back.
Before I review the 5th Avenue Theatre’s Production of Disney and Cameron Mackintosh’s Mary Poppins: The Broadway Musical (ain’t that a mouthful), I need to make a slight disclaimer. I think reviewers should admit to any issues, biases, or conflicts of interest that might sway the objectivity of their reviews. With this in mind, I need to confess to the massive crush I had on Mary Poppins as a child. I use the past tense for this crush when writing reviews or talking to my wife, but honestly, I just don’t know if I ever got over my infatuation with Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins.
As a boy, I didn’t really know how to describe what I was feeling, only that I really wished Mary Poppins would be my nanny. I knew that, unlike the Banks children, I would have always stayed just naughty enough to keep Mary Poppins from leaving me. And yes, I’m aware that sentence is probably more suitable for therapy than a theater review. What I’m trying to say, before someone says, “spit spot,” is my fandom of Mary Poppins definitely impacted my experience of the 5th Avenue Theatre’s presentation of Mary Poppins.
My fears were quickly allayed as I experienced a very lovely, well-rounded, heartfelt, and magical revisioning of the Mary Poppins movie I loved in my youth. And concerning the titular role of Mary Poppins, both Mallory Cooney King (first act) and Allison Standley (second act) “were practically perfect in every way.” Most nights you probably won’t see two Mary Poppins, but the production made the change after Mallory Cooney King’s voice showed some slight vocal strain in the first act.
In the second act, a new Poppins popped in, or more aptly floated in, and I was once again confronted with the reality of accepting another Mary Poppins other than the Julie Andrews of my youth. I think psychiatrists refer to this as exposure therapy. Good news for me, and for all those in attendance, Allison Standley aptly grabbed the baton, or should I say parrot umbrella, from her first act Mary Poppin’s predecessor and sang and danced the show to a delightful conclusion.
As far as the entire production, this stage version of Mary Poppins understands the strengths and weaknesses of the movie source material. The movie actually does not have a lot of plot beyond Mary Poppins being pretty cool in fanciful situations. That’s not really enough plot to make a two-act musical, although a similar plot brought us four John Wick movies. So, the theater version gives us a much better, three-dimensional, less stereotypical cringy version of the Banks family and the problems Mary Poppins will help fix before the closing of the final curtain. I hope that’s not a spoiler, that Mary Poppins will succeed in fixing the Banks family. I mean, she is Mary Freaking Poppins, the original John Wick; she gets the job done.
I particularly enjoyed how the stage production reordered and rearranged the most iconic songs from the film to make them even more Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. I don’t think my wife as ever enjoyed any theater experience more than the spelling focused Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious number. She told me on the drive home that she wished the song had just kept going. As an earworm of a tune, it kind of does just keep going long after the show is over. Besides that silly word, show-stopper of a song, I thoroughly enjoyed the “Step in Time” number that came at just the right time to high kick the musical towards a satisfying conclusion.
This would be a good time to mention Danny Gardner as Bert, the street artist, lamp lighting, chimney sweeping, plot forwarding, toe tapping, dancing, singing, friend or is it more than friends friend of Mary Poppins. Although Gardner does not embrace Dick Van Dyke’s clearly accurate, not at all incorrect British accent, he does embody the joy and sweetness of Van Dyke’s original character, but adds a welcomed depth and wisdom missing from the movie.
The musical hints that Bert might also have some magic up his sleeves or in his smile and handshake. Danny Gardner seems to have some magic too. He truly gives us a wonderful performance. For Mary Poppins to shine, she needs a really good Bert. This is also true of Ernie from Sesame Street (sorry I grew tired of referencing John Wick from four movies my boys forced me to see against my better judgement).
The cast does an excellent job of representing the dysfunctional Banks bunch. Eric Ankrim as George Banks finds a way to make me feel sympathetic or even glad for him, even though he is a somewhat misogynistic banker. I was rooting for a collapse in the banking system, but you’ll have to see how that all turned out. Jazmin Gorsline as Mr. Banks’ too tolerant wife holds her own and does the hard work of convincing us that she loves Mr. Banks, even though he spends a fair amount of time mansplaining his toxic masculinity. And did I mention, he’s a banker.
A side note, Gorsline has a beautiful voice and I could definitely mention individually the beautiful voices of the leads and ensemble cast, but I just wanted to mention there was a moment in the show when listening to Gorsline sing that I thought, “My her voice is beautiful,” and then the show continued on.
The voices and acting talents at the 5th Avenue Theatre are so frequently and consistently strong, that I sometimes become complacent in how I process these events. There are moments you’ll experience at the 5th that you just can’t experience anywhere else in Seattle, and these moments are thoroughly excellent and good. I’d say they are even better than what one might experience watching four John Wick movies (don’t worry, my boys will not read this review).
I’m sorry, but I spent too much time writing about my boyhood infatuation with Mary Poppins to do justice in mentioning each member of the production. There are no weak members in the cast, and it is a joy to watch the large ensemble, with big song and dance numbers, fill the lushly lit stage.
But lest you think me cruel, I could not finish this review without mentioning the stellar work of the Banks children. On my night, Michael Banks was played by Liam Kuriatnyk and Jane Banks was performed by Gia Pellegrini. Sometimes I get nervous watching child actors on the stage and that nervousness keeps me from entering into the production. Kuriatnyk and Pellegrini did not make me nervous, they made me happy and engrossed in the show. They are truly a highlight of the production. I assume the actors they alternate their parts with will also bring smiles to other audiences. And on another sidenote, I’m responsible for my own anxieties and should never blame them on child performers; at least I think that’s what a therapist would say.
The musical brings plenty of heartfelt satisfaction to the nostalgic and big pay offs for our favorite songs, but it is by no means redundant or stale. The plot has enough new twists and turns, along with a few new characters, to make the night fresh and exciting. I won’t spoil the fun of the new, but I will say I enjoyed Mr. Banks’ upbringing backstory and I probably am going to have a couple clown nightmares in the future.
So, for holiday wonderment, head into downtown Seattle and pick up a couple tickets to Mary Poppins. If you don’t like musical theater and your spouse wants to go, stop being a Mr. Banks, take your medicine. Mary Poppins is a spoonful of sugar and if you made your spouse go to even one John Wick movie, the least you can do is have a jolly holiday with Mary.
President Trump doesn’t like facts, doesn’t like science, and doesn’t like experts. He trusts his “gut” to tell what to do when faced with difficult decisions. That includes picking people to run the agencies of the government, including those that deal with the health of American citizens and various scientific disciplines. He doesn’t seem to understand that the strength of the economy and our military, in addition to the nation’s health, depends on an unfettered scientific establishment. Scientists must be free to do the research they feel is worthwhile, rather than being ruled by politicians who compose their agenda.
Trump’s cabinet and subcabinet picks appear determined to cut the number of scientific researchers working for the federal government, and to curb research that does not align with Trump’s or his cabinet’s scientific and medical beliefs. The continued growth of our economy requires scientific freedom to experiment in promising fields, and sometimes they will be wrong. But when they develop new technology and come up with new discoveries, the whole nation and sometimes the whole world benefits.
His choice of Robert Kennedy Jr to run the Department of Health and Human Services is an example of Trump choosing a person who has a profusion of ideas that have been proven to be scientifically invalid. Kennedy believes that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism among other adverse effects. Kennedy called the Covid-19 vaccine one of the most dangerous ever. He wants to stop fluoridation of the water supply which reduces tooth decay and believes that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are good treatments for Covid. All of these beliefs have been proven by the scientific establishment to be false. The NIH, the crown jewel of America’s health system is under threat from Kennedy and Trump. Some of Kennedy’s ideas on foods appear valid but his anti-scientific stances make him a dangerous candidate to take over all the health agencies.
There has also been talk about Trump getting rid of NOAA which is responsible for weather forecasting in North America and the surrounding oceans. In this era of heightened climate change and global warming, America and the rest of the world have faced multiple weather emergencies, including massive hurricanes, torrential rainstorms, flooding in some areas and droughts in others. The nation needs accurate weather forecasting to help its population prepare for these disasters before they hit. Trump has also called climate change a hoax and is in thrall to the fossil fuel companies whose products are the main driver of global warming. He does not want further research done that might prove him wrong and hurt his allies in the oil and gas business. But adoption of renewable energy is a must if we are to control global warming, with the concurrent elimination of fossil fuels. Biden’s Infrastructure Act was a move in the right direction, but we don’t know how Trump will deal with that. Trump will likely withdraw American again from the Paris Climate Accord. He doesn’t like to be proven wrong or shown up in any way and strikes out at those people willing to tell him when he is wrong. This is evident by the way he handled his appointees during his first term in office.
www.robertlevinebooks.com
Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or at your local bookstore
Posted at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tags: Donald Trump, global warming, HHS, NOAA, Robert Kennedy Jr, science, vaccines
I’ve been writing political opinion nonstop for 20 years. As of today I’m done.
Life was different when the Philadelphia Inquirer gifted me a column in January 2004. Both major parties believed in the rule of law, the peaceful transfer of power, and traditional democratic values. It was beyond unthinkable that either side would condone a plotted coup and morph into a criminal cult.
We opinion journalists are not so naive as to believe what we write can change the world. But we generally do hope what we write can perhaps make the world just a wee bit better on any given day by offering some grist for those who have the capacity to think. This was true of the America I loved in my younger life, but I no longer recognize the America we’re stuck with. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that I recognize it all too well – and that, having reached that conclusion, I’ve hit the wall on how to write about it. In the quality time I have left, I won’t expend precious brain cells inveighing in vain about the MAGA dark age.
Hence my personal decision to shift gears.
Early next year, for those who care, I’ll resurface on Substack, the online home for writers. My “newsletter” (Substack lingo) will be light on politics and heavy on other interests: books, movies, baseball, Boomer music, streaming TV, trips, memories, whatever strikes my fancy. I don’t assume there will be many readers (who cares what I think about some Netflix show?), but tapping a keyboard is in my DNA. To tweak a line from the French philosopher Rene Descartes, I write therefore I am.
Roughly 75 million of us are wrestling with how to recalibrate and soldier on, how to attain and sustain equilibrium in a land turned upside down, a land that has left us, in the words of St. Paul the Apostle, “at the mercy of all the tricks men play and their cleverness in deceit.”
I’m busy grieving the loss of the all-American verities I once took for granted. I was raised to believe that the rule of law was good. That criminality was bad. That decency was good. That racism was bad. That empathy was good. That misogyny was bad. That veracity was good. That education was good and ignorance was bad. That telling the truth was good and serial lying was bad.
But clearly I’m out of sync with the times. The will of the people – don’t get me started about those people – have flipped the script and told us who we really are.
Many factors have brought us to this pitiable abyss, but what concerns me most is the epidemic of ignorance. Half the electorate (the winning half) rejects factual reality; an October poll, conducted by Ipsos, said that “Americans who have correct information on current political issues” strongly favored Kamala Harris; the ill-informed, stoked by the metastasizing MAGA “media,” strongly favored Trump. That’s how it works in Hungary, where Viktor Orban has dismantled democracy by building his own disinformation domain.
Predictability is the death of creativity. I should know. My standard column, these last nine years, has started with a lament (Look what Trump is saying/doing!) and ended with a warning (If voters don’t wake up, things will get worse!). Writing about Trump is an enervating exercise, like circling a cul de sac with no avenue of escape. It deadens the mind and sucks out the soul.
My colleagues in the commentariat are doing their best right now – spotlighting Trump’s new roster of freaks and pervs, the “crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence is the best guarantee of their loyalty” (Hannah Arendt’s description of totalitarian toadies) – and I’ll likely read them with interest. I surely don’t envy their task.
The high purpose of political journalism is to speak truth to power, but half the electorate has sanctioned oligarchical power. Truth is now is just another “narrative” competing in vain for the attention of the inattentive.
This dispatch from a seasoned journalist says it all: “Often in a home or office or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a cafe, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard or read. Sometimes (I) was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions (I) was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts had become what (their leader), with cynical disregard for the truth, said they were.”
Sound familiar? That was American correspondent William Shirer, reporting from Germany during the 1930s. Anyone who’s still in denial about what awaits us should be indicted for failure of imagination.
So I’m bailing until I reboot. Steely Dan sang, “When Black Friday comes / I’m gonna dig myself a hole / Gonna lay down in it ’til I satisfy my soul.” Our Black Friday is now at hand. I need not add my wee voice to the plethora of opinion writers who are rightly seething anew over the latest Trumpist turns of the screw. Starting in January, my Substack newsletter will be titled “Subject to Change,” and, post by post, it certainly will. That’s how I hope to cope.
I suspect that you too are determined to navigate the coming storm by nurturing what makes you happy, what satisfies your soul. As the self-help guru Kamal Ravikant says, “Love yourself like your life depends on it.” I now join you in that quest.
Copyright 2024 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes at DickPolman.net. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com
“The fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a midtown Manhattan hotel on Wednesday morning was a shock to the city and the nation. But as police hunted for the missing gunman in what they called a ‘premeditated, preplanned, targeted attack,’ social media erupted with contempt for the health insurance industry he represented — and his company in particular.”
Here are a few responses to the murder that were posted on Bluesky.
@gretchenart.bsky.social : “Sympathy not covered by insurance”
@cantankerous1.bsky.social : “I condemn the assassination of the CEO. Nobody should take a life in such a manner, regardless of the circumstances. That said, I will not be attending the funeral, any services, nor will I send an arrangement. I’ll be sweeping the dog hair from under the refrigerator – a much more important event.”
@cheryl606.bsky.social : “Heartless for the heartless”
@oldjoestalin.bsky.social : “I reckon the reward is being offered by United Healthcare itself, since it’s only $10,000. The CEO makes $10M, but all they can offer as a reward is $10K. They’re concerned about how it will affect shareholder value. Late stage capitalism, comrades.”
@peterthebaffled.bsky.social : “That may have been a hit engineered by his own colleagues or someone who lost a friend or relative due to the callous actions of a profit driven industry that thrives on human misery. I’m sure it’s worrying the bloodsucking execs of the rest of the industry.”
Here are some responses that were posted on X.com.
@LeoChuFanclub : “Can everyone please stop making jokes about the United Healthcare CEO’s assassination, I’m having trouble liking all of them.”
@NotADebacle : “Everyone who has ever been f*cked over by their insurance company needs to remember they are run by flesh and blood monsters with addresses and bodies that bleed. If you’ve got a fatal diagnosis you can be a hero.”
@Dylan811077382 : “When I told my aunt this morning abt the United healthcare ceo assassination this kind sweet old lady had the most beautiful smile on her face.”
@dilemmairv : “guys stop tweeting memes about the united healthcare assassination. it’s a tragedy. my fingers hurt from liking them all”
@RoyJrthe2nd : “I think my favorite part about the United Healthcare assassin is that everybody is on this dude’s side. Like f*ck anyone who will execute a corrupt CEO in the street for f*cking over millions of people is cool in my book.”
There hasn’t been this much disdain for an insurance executive since Bob Parr put his boss at Insuricare in a hospital.
If you’ve ever wondered how the right-wing media ecosystem operates and why it’s effective, try viewing it as a form of improvisational theater or improv.
In the wake of the 2024 U.S. elections, everyday people and political pundits alike have been trying to make sense of the results and the related observation that many Americans seem to be experiencing very different realities. These realities are shaped by very different media ecosystems
.
Democrats tend to trust institutional media and network news more than Republicans
. In contrast, Republicans have developed what they see as a more trustworthy and explicitly partisan alternative media ecosystem that has rapidly evolved and flourished in the internet era.
Cultivating robust alternative media has been a political strategy of the right for decades
. Given the interactive nature of social media and ongoing investments by the right in digital media, the right-wing media ecosystem has become a highly participatory space filled with influencers, political elites and audiences.
These players engage in year-round conversations that inspire and adapt political messaging. The collaborations are not tightly scripted but improvised, facilitated by the interactivity of digital media.
For all these reasons, we, as researchers ofinformation ecosystems
and influencer culture, find it useful to think of right-wing media as a kind of improv theater. This metaphor helps us understand the social and digital structure, culture and persuasive power of right-wing influence, which is reshaping politics in the U.S. and around the world
.
Elements of improv in right-wing media
Influencers are the performers in this real-life improv show that plays out on a stage of social media newsfeeds, podcasts, cable newsrooms and partisan online media outlets. The performers include political pundits and media personalities as well as a dynamic group of online opinion leaders who often ascend from the audience to the stage, in part by recognizing and exploiting the dynamics of digital media.
These influencers work together, performing a variety of roles based on a set of informal rules and performance conventions: sharing vague but emotionally resonant memes, “just asking questions
” to each other, trolling a journalist, “evidencing” claims with data or photos – sometimes taken out of context – all the while engaging each other’s content.
Just as in improv, performers work daily to find a game from their audience, internet forums and each other. The “game
” in improv is a concept or story with a novel element around which a performance revolves. Once a compelling game is found, performers “raise the stakes,” another improv concept where the plot intensifies and expands.
Performers follow a loose script, collaborating toward a shared goal. Digital media environments provide additional infrastructure — the platform features, networks and algorithms — that shapes the performances.
Signature elements of improv include building on audience input and reacting to the other performers.
Their performances, both individual and in interaction with each other, help influencers attract and curate an audience they are highly in tune with. As in improv shows, the political performers may use a technique called a callback
: referencing a previous line, exchange or game that the audience is familiar with. Or performers might react to calls from an engaged audience that cheers, jeers and steers the actors as the show unfolds. The audience may also prompt an entire skit by bringing a story to the attention of influencers or politicians.
From this perspective, influence doesn’t just flow from influencers on stage and out to the audience, but also flows from the audience to the influencers. These dynamics make the right-wing media ecosystem extremely reactive. Feedback is instant, and the right “bits” get laughs and likes. Influencers — and political leaders — can quickly adapt their messaging to their audiences’ tastes, preferences and grievances, as well as to the events and trends of the day, unencumbered by the lag of traditional news media.
Actors and audiences in right-wing media also engage in transgressive, controversial or even offensive bits, as they test the boundaries of their shared tastes, expectations and — for the political performers — ideologies.
Like a lot of improv shows, these performances feel intimate and authentic. Audience members can talk to the performers after and sometimes during the show. They can also be invited “on stage” when an influencer elevates their content.
It may be just for a single scene, but there is also opportunity for lucky, savvy or persistent contributors to become part of the theater of influencers. This increases the motivation to participate, the excitement and the sense among audience members that they are truly part of the show.
‘They’re eating the pets’
One example of right-wing media as improv came in fall 2024 when then-candidate Donald Trump baselessly claimed
from a debate stage that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating pets.
Prior to Trump referencing them, rumors of pet-eating had been circulating in local Springfield Facebook groups. These claims were amplified when a local neo-Nazi leader discussed the issue
in a recorded town hall meeting, which circulated in apps like Telegram and Gab. Influencers who monitor these channels elevated the story
, finding a new game with a novel element.
A Reddit post of a photo of a man holding a bird walking down the street was taken out of context by influencers and falsely used as “evidence”
of immigrants eating pets. Memes, particularly those made by artificial intelligence, started spreading rapidly, catching the attention of politicians including Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene
, who shared them. This raised the stakes of the improv game by tying these smaller memes to a larger political narrative about needing to stop migration at the southern border.
The improv act reached its zenith when Trump and then vice presidential candidate JD Vance elevated the claims during the week of the September debate. They presented the claims with both seriousness and a bit of a tongue-in-cheek awareness that the point of the story was not necessarily about immigrants but about the attention the narrative garnered. Vance even acknowledged the whole thing could “turn out to be false
.” Veracity was not the point of this improvisation.
Then-candidate Donald Trump elevated baseless claims of immigrants eating pets, a false story that bubbled up through the right-wing media ecosystem.
Growing body of research
The metaphor of right-wing media as improv emerged through research, conversation and collaboration facilitated by the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public
, where we work.
One of us, Kate Starbird, and colleagues studied the role of political influencers in election-denying rumors after the 2020 election, finding right-wing political campaigns to be participatory efforts that were largely improvised
. In related work, media researcher Anna Beers
described how a “theater of influencers
” on the right could be identified through their interactions with a shared audience.
Doctoral student Stephen Prochaska
and colleagues built on sociologist Arlie Hochschild
’s work to characterize the production of election fraud narratives
in 2020 as “deep storytelling” – telling stories with strong emotional resonance – between right-wing influencers and their online audiences.
In her study of right-wing influencers, one of us, Danielle Lee Tomson, described the performative collaboration
between influencers as kayfabe
, a performance convention in professional wrestling of wrestlers agreeing on a story arc before a seemingly real wrestling match.
These studies all draw on different theories and apply different methods, but they converge on the ideas of improvisation, style and participatory audiences as integral to the success of right-wing media ecosystems.
A persuasive performance
In political improv, factuality is less important than the compelling nature of the performance, the actors, the big story arc and the aesthetic. The storylines can be riveting, engaging and participatory, allowing audiences to play their own role in a grand epic of American activism.
When considered this way, the persuasive power of right-wing media to everyday Americans comes into fuller focus. When there is a 24/7 chorus of collaborative internet influencers engaging their audiences directly, institutional media begins to feel too far removed and disengaged to have a comparable effect.
