Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 922
December 15, 2015
Donald Trump supporter wants to burn a black man alive: “Light the motherf**ker on fire”
Donald Trump and his supporters are a mirror for the worst part of the right-wing political id. Last night during a pre-debate rally in Las Vegas, Donald Trump supporters assailed Black Lives Matter protesters. While security forcibly removed the protesters from the event, Donald Trump’s supporters were reportedly heard shouting racial slurs. One of Trump’s most enthusiastic backers was even heard yelling that one of the protesters, an African-American man, should be burned alive: 
Donald Trump and his supporters are a mirror for the worst part of the right-wing political id. Last night during a pre-debate rally in Las Vegas, Donald Trump supporters assailed Black Lives Matter protesters. While security forcibly removed the protesters from the event, Donald Trump’s supporters were reportedly heard shouting racial slurs. One of Trump’s most enthusiastic backers was even heard yelling that one of the protesters, an African-American man, should be burned alive:
Donald Trump held a rally Monday night in Las Vegas a day before the Republican presidential candidates are set to appear on stage for the final GOP debate of the year. During the rally, multiple protesters attempting to interrupt the candidate’s speech were escorted out of the Westgate Las Vegas Resort. In a video captured by BuzzFeed News senior political writer McKay Coppins, a Trump supporter could be heard yelling r as security officers restrained a protester.This is not the first time that either actual physical violence or violent rhetoric has been used at Donald Trump rallies. Several weeks ago, a black protester in Alabama was beaten on by Donald Trump supporters and reportedly called racial slurs. At other events, Donald Trump’s supporters have attacked protesters who were voicing their concerns about his anti-immigrant screeds towards Hispanics and Latinos. Trump supporters also attacked a homeless person because they thought he was an “illegal immigrant.” Donald Trump describes his public as “passionate” and high energy. He urges on their violence with statements such as “maybe he should have been roughed up.” Trump does not condemn the violence; the thuggery of his supporters is a type of barometer and life blood for his effectiveness as a proto-fascist demagogue. The right-wing media is largely mute on Trump’s antics. They have circulated and ginned up violence—be it domestic terrorism and/or thuggery by Trump supporters—for years. To forcibly and enthusiastically condemn it now would be a betrayal of how the Fox News media and its propagandists have weaponized their public and created the drumbeat for stochastic right-wing domestic terrorism. When Donald Trump supporters, the overwhelming majority of whom are white (except for the black and brown human props that are trotted out to give cover for his racism), yell racial slurs at black American protesters, or in a spine chilling tone offer up a fantasy of “light the motherfucker on fire,” such moments are outside of the boundaries of normal political speech. The United States has a deep, dark, and ugly history of burning black Americans alive. Those wicked acts are one of the few examples where America is truly exceptional—few if any other countries have a tradition of what historians and others have termed the “spectacular lynching.” Thousands of black Americans were lynched in the United States between the postbellum period and through to the middle of the twentieth century. The last “traditional” lynching of a black person in the United States took place in 1981. There have been other types of “lynchings” in recent years too. These include the dragging to death of James Byrd Jr., the extrajudicial killings of black people by white vigilantes such as George Zimmerman, and the shooting to death by cop committed by Darren Wilson in Ferguson and Jason Van Dyke in Chicago. The victims of White America’s spectacular lynching culture have names. They were Claude Neal, Samuel Hose, Elijah Strickland, and Emmett Till. The names of many other black victims of white mob violence were lost to the historical record. But their pain and stories are remembered by the families, friends, community, and descendants they left behind. For example, Samuel Hose (alias Samuel Holt), killed in a more brutal manner than ISIS terrorists do to their human prey, was tortured by white Christians in Georgia. Witnesses described his murder in the following way:
Sam Holt...was burned at the stake in a public road.... Before the torch was applied to the pyre, the Negro was deprived of his ears, fingers, and other portions of his body.... Before the body was cool, it was cut to pieces, the bones were crushed into small bits, and even the tree upon which the wretch met his fate were torn up and disposed of as souvenirs. The Negro's heart was cut in small pieces, as was also his liver. Those unable to obtain the ghastly relics directly paid more fortunate possessors extravagant sums for them. Small pieces of bone went for 25 cents and a bit of liver, crisply cooked, for 10 cents.The savage murder of Claude Neal involved unimaginable barbarism and sadism:
By the time Friday evening came around, a large crowd of several thousand people had gathered outside the Cannidy farm to observe and participate in the lynching. But the size of the mob began to make the men holding Neal nervous. So the "Lynch Committee of Six," as the group called itself, decided to take him to another location where they would have better control over how the lynching was carried out. According to eyewitness accounts and newspaper reports, it was a drawn out and torturous process. Soon after arriving at the chosen spot, Neal was castrated. His torso was cut and stabbed with knives and sticks. His fingers and toes were cut off and the remainder of his body burned with hot irons. One newspaper account states there were 18 bullet holes in Neal's chest, head and abdomen. Neal's body was then tied to the rear of an automobile and dragged to the Cannidy farm, where women and children participated in the final acts of mutilation. The body was then hung from an oak tree on the courthouse lawn. Photos were taken and later sold for 50 cents a piece. Neal's fingers and toes were reportedly exhibited as souvenirs. The local sheriff cut the body down the following morning. A mob soon formed demanding that it be hung up again. The sheriff refused, the mob descended upon the courthouse. The mob then dispersed into the city streets and began attacking the remaining blacks in town.It has been rumored that Claude Neal was even forced to eat his own penis by the white lynch mob. When Trump’s supporters yell “light the motherfucker on fire”, hurl racial slurs, and beat up Black Lives Matter protesters they are invoking a wicked history of American white supremacy. The 2016 Republican presidential primaries are one more reminder of how the GOP is the United States’ largest white identity organization. Donald Trump is not an outlier or a blip. His popularity is the predictable result of a political party and media that uses white racial resentment, overt anti-black and brown animus, nativism, sexism, xenophobia, and eliminationist rhetoric to mobilize its base. Of course, Donald Trump, the right-wing media, and conservative opinion leaders will, for the most part, deny and excuse-make for the racism and increasing violence from his followers. The paranoid style will assert itself: the black and brown protesters attacked by Trump supporters are “agent provocateurs” designed to “undermine” and make “conservatives” look “racist”. This is priceless irony. American conservatives demand “personal responsibility” and group accountability for every other group of people but themselves. In their deflections they prove, again, how contemporary conservatism is a movement typified by white victimology. As such, every Muslim must apologize for ISIS and Al Qaeda. All black Americans must be held responsible for “black crime” and “the broken black family.” Yet, (white) conservatives can hide behind the shield of “individualism”. White privilege is many things. But, first and foremost, it is the freedom to never be held accountable for the actions of other white people. In the weeks and months leading to the presidential election, Donald Trump’s supporters will continue to escalate their rhetoric and violence. Donald Trump will smile. Republican elites will continue to act as though they are aghast and shocked at what is happening with their party and public. The Republican Party and the Fox News echo chamber made Donald Trump possible. They encouraged his supporters. They nurtured his lies. They fed the rage machine and conspiranoid fantasies of movement conservatives. Now they are reaping what they sowed. This chaos would be justice and righteous comeuppance…if the rest of the American people did not have to risk being collateral damage from the mess caused by the Republican Party’s monsters.
Donald Trump and his supporters are a mirror for the worst part of the right-wing political id. Last night during a pre-debate rally in Las Vegas, Donald Trump supporters assailed Black Lives Matter protesters. While security forcibly removed the protesters from the event, Donald Trump’s supporters were reportedly heard shouting racial slurs. One of Trump’s most enthusiastic backers was even heard yelling that one of the protesters, an African-American man, should be burned alive: Donald Trump held a rally Monday night in Las Vegas a day before the Republican presidential candidates are set to appear on stage for the final GOP debate of the year. During the rally, multiple protesters attempting to interrupt the candidate’s speech were escorted out of the Westgate Las Vegas Resort. In a video captured by BuzzFeed News senior political writer McKay Coppins, a Trump supporter could be heard yelling r as security officers restrained a protester.This is not the first time that either actual physical violence or violent rhetoric has been used at Donald Trump rallies. Several weeks ago, a black protester in Alabama was beaten on by Donald Trump supporters and reportedly called racial slurs. At other events, Donald Trump’s supporters have attacked protesters who were voicing their concerns about his anti-immigrant screeds towards Hispanics and Latinos. Trump supporters also attacked a homeless person because they thought he was an “illegal immigrant.” Donald Trump describes his public as “passionate” and high energy. He urges on their violence with statements such as “maybe he should have been roughed up.” Trump does not condemn the violence; the thuggery of his supporters is a type of barometer and life blood for his effectiveness as a proto-fascist demagogue. The right-wing media is largely mute on Trump’s antics. They have circulated and ginned up violence—be it domestic terrorism and/or thuggery by Trump supporters—for years. To forcibly and enthusiastically condemn it now would be a betrayal of how the Fox News media and its propagandists have weaponized their public and created the drumbeat for stochastic right-wing domestic terrorism. When Donald Trump supporters, the overwhelming majority of whom are white (except for the black and brown human props that are trotted out to give cover for his racism), yell racial slurs at black American protesters, or in a spine chilling tone offer up a fantasy of “light the motherfucker on fire,” such moments are outside of the boundaries of normal political speech. The United States has a deep, dark, and ugly history of burning black Americans alive. Those wicked acts are one of the few examples where America is truly exceptional—few if any other countries have a tradition of what historians and others have termed the “spectacular lynching.” Thousands of black Americans were lynched in the United States between the postbellum period and through to the middle of the twentieth century. The last “traditional” lynching of a black person in the United States took place in 1981. There have been other types of “lynchings” in recent years too. These include the dragging to death of James Byrd Jr., the extrajudicial killings of black people by white vigilantes such as George Zimmerman, and the shooting to death by cop committed by Darren Wilson in Ferguson and Jason Van Dyke in Chicago. The victims of White America’s spectacular lynching culture have names. They were Claude Neal, Samuel Hose, Elijah Strickland, and Emmett Till. The names of many other black victims of white mob violence were lost to the historical record. But their pain and stories are remembered by the families, friends, community, and descendants they left behind. For example, Samuel Hose (alias Samuel Holt), killed in a more brutal manner than ISIS terrorists do to their human prey, was tortured by white Christians in Georgia. Witnesses described his murder in the following way:
Sam Holt...was burned at the stake in a public road.... Before the torch was applied to the pyre, the Negro was deprived of his ears, fingers, and other portions of his body.... Before the body was cool, it was cut to pieces, the bones were crushed into small bits, and even the tree upon which the wretch met his fate were torn up and disposed of as souvenirs. The Negro's heart was cut in small pieces, as was also his liver. Those unable to obtain the ghastly relics directly paid more fortunate possessors extravagant sums for them. Small pieces of bone went for 25 cents and a bit of liver, crisply cooked, for 10 cents.The savage murder of Claude Neal involved unimaginable barbarism and sadism:
By the time Friday evening came around, a large crowd of several thousand people had gathered outside the Cannidy farm to observe and participate in the lynching. But the size of the mob began to make the men holding Neal nervous. So the "Lynch Committee of Six," as the group called itself, decided to take him to another location where they would have better control over how the lynching was carried out. According to eyewitness accounts and newspaper reports, it was a drawn out and torturous process. Soon after arriving at the chosen spot, Neal was castrated. His torso was cut and stabbed with knives and sticks. His fingers and toes were cut off and the remainder of his body burned with hot irons. One newspaper account states there were 18 bullet holes in Neal's chest, head and abdomen. Neal's body was then tied to the rear of an automobile and dragged to the Cannidy farm, where women and children participated in the final acts of mutilation. The body was then hung from an oak tree on the courthouse lawn. Photos were taken and later sold for 50 cents a piece. Neal's fingers and toes were reportedly exhibited as souvenirs. The local sheriff cut the body down the following morning. A mob soon formed demanding that it be hung up again. The sheriff refused, the mob descended upon the courthouse. The mob then dispersed into the city streets and began attacking the remaining blacks in town.It has been rumored that Claude Neal was even forced to eat his own penis by the white lynch mob. When Trump’s supporters yell “light the motherfucker on fire”, hurl racial slurs, and beat up Black Lives Matter protesters they are invoking a wicked history of American white supremacy. The 2016 Republican presidential primaries are one more reminder of how the GOP is the United States’ largest white identity organization. Donald Trump is not an outlier or a blip. His popularity is the predictable result of a political party and media that uses white racial resentment, overt anti-black and brown animus, nativism, sexism, xenophobia, and eliminationist rhetoric to mobilize its base. Of course, Donald Trump, the right-wing media, and conservative opinion leaders will, for the most part, deny and excuse-make for the racism and increasing violence from his followers. The paranoid style will assert itself: the black and brown protesters attacked by Trump supporters are “agent provocateurs” designed to “undermine” and make “conservatives” look “racist”. This is priceless irony. American conservatives demand “personal responsibility” and group accountability for every other group of people but themselves. In their deflections they prove, again, how contemporary conservatism is a movement typified by white victimology. As such, every Muslim must apologize for ISIS and Al Qaeda. All black Americans must be held responsible for “black crime” and “the broken black family.” Yet, (white) conservatives can hide behind the shield of “individualism”. White privilege is many things. But, first and foremost, it is the freedom to never be held accountable for the actions of other white people. In the weeks and months leading to the presidential election, Donald Trump’s supporters will continue to escalate their rhetoric and violence. Donald Trump will smile. Republican elites will continue to act as though they are aghast and shocked at what is happening with their party and public. The Republican Party and the Fox News echo chamber made Donald Trump possible. They encouraged his supporters. They nurtured his lies. They fed the rage machine and conspiranoid fantasies of movement conservatives. Now they are reaping what they sowed. This chaos would be justice and righteous comeuppance…if the rest of the American people did not have to risk being collateral damage from the mess caused by the Republican Party’s monsters.
The GOP debate subplot that everyone should be paying attention to
This election cycle has dominated by a populist backlash in the GOP between the Republican elite donor class and the activist base. While many have suggested that immigration lies at the heart of this story, new evidence suggests that at the core of the debate may actually be deep rifts on economic policy. As GOP candidates prepare to take the stage tonight, it remains to be seen whether they will adopt the policies of the wealthy Republican donor class or average Republicans. (Hint: probably the donors.) While it’s certain that resentment about race and immigration are motivating Trump’s supporters, there is reason to believe that the donor class’s economic agenda is alienating as well. To explore how donors differ from non-donors, Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at University of Massachusetts Amherst and an expert in campaign finance, provided me data from the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which had 32,800 respondents. While the 2008 survey is a bit older, CCES uses questions that come up for roll-call votes, and sadly the last time such questions were available was 2008. CCES is unique in that it has a relatively large sample of large donors, in this case 324 Republican donors who gave more than $1,000 and 459 Democrats who did the same. The five questions I examined where all roll call vote questions, which ask respondents whether they would vote in favor or against legislation. I examined support for the following policies: Increase Minimum Wage: Increase Minimum Wage from $5.15 to $7.25 Health Insurance Program for Children: Fund a $20 billion program to provide health insurance for children in families earning less that $43,000 Federal Assistance for Housing Crisis: Federal assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure and large lending institutions at risk of failing Extend NAFTA: Extend the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include Peru and Columbia Bank Bailout: U. S. Government’s $700 Billion Bank Bailout Plan The first thing that stands out is that when examining donors who gave more than $1,000 compared to non-donors is that they are more economically conservative than non-donors. Donors who gave more than $1,000 were 10 points less likely to support an increased minimum wage (84 percent to 74 percent) and 5 points less likely to support a health insurance program for low-income children (76 percent to 71 percent). They were also more supportive of the bank bailouts (27 percent to 35 percent).
However, these gaps become far larger when we explore the differences between major Republican donors (those giving more than $1,000) and non-donors. For instance, a whopping 63 percent of Republican non-donors support a higher minimum wage, compared to only 32 percent of donors who gave more than $1,000. In addition, 46 percent of Republican non-donors support a funding a program to provide health insurance to poor children, compared with 26 percent of big donors (other research has shown gaps between donors and non-donors on healthcare). Big donors are far more supportive of a NAFTA expansion, while non-donors were split nearly half and half. Finally, non-donors were more likely to support housing assistance, though there were no large differences on bank bailouts. These data suggest that a key divide between GOP voters and donors are on issues related to the economy and redistribution. But elites have systematically failed to address these concerns, preferring instead massive upward redistribution.
Among Democrats the biggest gaps were the NAFTA extension (50 percent of non-donors supported extending NAFTA, compared to 32 percent of donors who gave more than $1,000) and the bank bailouts (34 percent of non-donors in support compared to 48 percent of donors giving more than $1,000). These findings are in line with other data suggesting that the wealthy have differing priorities from average Americans (the donor class is overwhelmingly more wealthy than average Americans). Political scientist Martin Gilens, whose work has examined in depth opinion differences between the rich and middle class, finds that redistribution is one of the areas with the most disagreement. This lines up with the results of a survey of wealthy respondents by political scientists Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright, who find, “to a much greater extent than the general public—the wealthy oppose government action to redistribute income or wealth.” They also find deep gaps on policies related to healthcare (see chart).
Donors have differing preferences from the general population, and their power is only increasing in the wake of Citizens United and other court cases that have made it easier for donors to influence elections. In 2012, Cooperative Congressional Election Study data indicate that 24 percent of Americans gave money, but only 6 percent gave more than $200. On average, members of the general public gave $336. However, FEC data show that among the richest 100 billionaires, the average donation was $74,982. That means that the average donation by one of the super rich is 223 times more than the donation of the general public.
Tonight’s debate may be broadcast nationally, but candidates have so far dedicated themselves to an agenda that is supported by, and benefits, a small sliver of the population. As long as politicians respond to donors, Trump-mania and other populist movements will remain inflamed.
However, these gaps become far larger when we explore the differences between major Republican donors (those giving more than $1,000) and non-donors. For instance, a whopping 63 percent of Republican non-donors support a higher minimum wage, compared to only 32 percent of donors who gave more than $1,000. In addition, 46 percent of Republican non-donors support a funding a program to provide health insurance to poor children, compared with 26 percent of big donors (other research has shown gaps between donors and non-donors on healthcare). Big donors are far more supportive of a NAFTA expansion, while non-donors were split nearly half and half. Finally, non-donors were more likely to support housing assistance, though there were no large differences on bank bailouts. These data suggest that a key divide between GOP voters and donors are on issues related to the economy and redistribution. But elites have systematically failed to address these concerns, preferring instead massive upward redistribution.
Among Democrats the biggest gaps were the NAFTA extension (50 percent of non-donors supported extending NAFTA, compared to 32 percent of donors who gave more than $1,000) and the bank bailouts (34 percent of non-donors in support compared to 48 percent of donors giving more than $1,000). These findings are in line with other data suggesting that the wealthy have differing priorities from average Americans (the donor class is overwhelmingly more wealthy than average Americans). Political scientist Martin Gilens, whose work has examined in depth opinion differences between the rich and middle class, finds that redistribution is one of the areas with the most disagreement. This lines up with the results of a survey of wealthy respondents by political scientists Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright, who find, “to a much greater extent than the general public—the wealthy oppose government action to redistribute income or wealth.” They also find deep gaps on policies related to healthcare (see chart).
Donors have differing preferences from the general population, and their power is only increasing in the wake of Citizens United and other court cases that have made it easier for donors to influence elections. In 2012, Cooperative Congressional Election Study data indicate that 24 percent of Americans gave money, but only 6 percent gave more than $200. On average, members of the general public gave $336. However, FEC data show that among the richest 100 billionaires, the average donation was $74,982. That means that the average donation by one of the super rich is 223 times more than the donation of the general public.
Tonight’s debate may be broadcast nationally, but candidates have so far dedicated themselves to an agenda that is supported by, and benefits, a small sliver of the population. As long as politicians respond to donors, Trump-mania and other populist movements will remain inflamed.
Dear Generation X: Don’t believe the Marco Rubio hype
At least since he officially announced his race for the presidency in April, Marco Rubio has been playing himself up as the young guy in the mix. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new American century,” he said at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton, he continued: “Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.” He’s directed the same kind of rhetoric toward Jeb Bush back when he was a threat. So whether he's claiming to be the youngest guy in the room or pledging his Gen X bona fides – like his fondness for Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur, and West Coast hip hop – Rubio has shrewdly positioned himself as the youthful (for the office, anyway) alternative to the Boomer candidates. (Is a Pavement T-shirt and a crush on Winona Ryder next?) Some observers have doubted he can get anywhere with his pitch, though. Ana Marie Cox, for instance, called him a “Gen-X Fraud.” 
At least since he officially announced his race for the presidency in April, Marco Rubio has been playing himself up as the young guy in the mix. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new American century,” he said at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton, he continued: “Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.” He’s directed the same kind of rhetoric toward Jeb Bush back when he was a threat. So whether he's claiming to be the youngest guy in the room or pledging his Gen X bona fides – like his fondness for Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur, and West Coast hip hop – Rubio has shrewdly positioned himself as the youthful (for the office, anyway) alternative to the Boomer candidates. (Is a Pavement T-shirt and a crush on Winona Ryder next?) Some observers have doubted he can get anywhere with his pitch, though. Ana Marie Cox, for instance, called him a “Gen-X Fraud.” At least since he officially announced his race for the presidency in April, Marco Rubio has been playing himself up as the young guy in the mix. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new American century,” he said at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton, he continued: “Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.” He’s directed the same kind of rhetoric toward Jeb Bush back when he was a threat. So whether he's claiming to be the youngest guy in the room or pledging his Gen X bona fides – like his fondness for Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur, and West Coast hip hop – Rubio has shrewdly positioned himself as the youthful (for the office, anyway) alternative to the Boomer candidates. (Is a Pavement T-shirt and a crush on Winona Ryder next?) Some observers have doubted he can get anywhere with his pitch, though. Ana Marie Cox, for instance, called him a “Gen-X Fraud.” At least since he officially announced his race for the presidency in April, Marco Rubio has been playing himself up as the young guy in the mix. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new American century,” he said at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton, he continued: “Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.” He’s directed the same kind of rhetoric toward Jeb Bush back when he was a threat. So whether he's claiming to be the youngest guy in the room or pledging his Gen X bona fides – like his fondness for Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur, and West Coast hip hop – Rubio has shrewdly positioned himself as the youthful (for the office, anyway) alternative to the Boomer candidates. (Is a Pavement T-shirt and a crush on Winona Ryder next?) Some observers have doubted he can get anywhere with his pitch, though. Ana Marie Cox, for instance, called him a “Gen-X Fraud.”
Take away Rubio’s biography and look at his positions and he becomes less the voice of his generation and more Benjamin Button. If I told you about a candidate that was anti-marriage equality, anti-immigration reform (for now), anti-pot decriminalization, pro-government surveillance, and in favor of international intervention but against doing something about climate change, what would you guess the candidate’s age to be? On all of those issues, Rubio’s position is not the one shared by most young people. The Guardian dubbed him the “John McCain of the millennial set,” which isn’t fair to McCain, who at least has averred that climate change exists.It’s not clear if his fellow Xers are persuaded. But weirdly, Rubio seems to be getting through to millennials much better than we’d expect, given their reputation for liberalism. An insightful Slate story based on a new NBC News poll describes Rubio but matching Hillary Clinton with voters from 18 to 34 -- despite the tendency of Democrats to capture the young -- and slightly beating her (48 to 45 percent) among all voters. As friendly and sane as Rubio might appear on the surface — considering the current GOP competition — the idea of him becoming president is chilling. "I think Marco is a severe conservative, really far to the right, but probably the most talented spokesman the severe right could ever hope for," Dan Gelber, who led Florida House Democrats while Rubio served as speaker of the house, told NBC News. "He has a televangelical ability to communicate.” Mother Jones describes his energy plan as “Drill, Drill, Drill, and Drill Some More.” His conservative position on the environment, as well as on minimum wage, abortion, marijuana, and other issues, has him out of step with a lot of Gen X voters. Even scarier is the thought that Rubio – though he was born in 1971 – is in some ways culturally a millennial, just part of a rising conservative wedge. (He’s got their soaring optimism and love of social media.) And there may be a wave of right-leaning millennials on their way, anyway. As Jamelle Bouie writes for Slate, these younger millennials are very different than the young voters who helped elect Obama:
…the most liberal millennials are those that came of age under President George W. Bush, while the most conservative ones are those that came of political age under President Obama and have faced a sluggish and stagnant economy. Far from embracing Rubio and the Republican Party, these voters may just be skeptical of the Democratic Party’s ability to deliver economic growth and opportunity. To this point, the November unemployment rate was 15.3 percent for people aged 18 to 19, and 9.6 percent for people aged 20 to 24.Similarly, the New York Times has reported that women in their 20s don’t seem to be as dedicated to Hillary as older generations. She can't count on them. Rubio, then, seems to have the demographic tide on his side. So who can stop his momentum? Gen Xers don’t have the numbers that the Boomers and millennials do. But we still vote. Rubio may numerically one of us, but he’s also a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Here’s a call to other Xers: Put down your Liz Phair and Public Enemy LPs, turn off your Noah Baumbach movies, and call this guy out when he speaks for his generation. His birthday may make him seem like one of us, but as Chuck D would say, don’t believe the hype.
At least since he officially announced his race for the presidency in April, Marco Rubio has been playing himself up as the young guy in the mix. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new American century,” he said at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton, he continued: “Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.” He’s directed the same kind of rhetoric toward Jeb Bush back when he was a threat. So whether he's claiming to be the youngest guy in the room or pledging his Gen X bona fides – like his fondness for Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur, and West Coast hip hop – Rubio has shrewdly positioned himself as the youthful (for the office, anyway) alternative to the Boomer candidates. (Is a Pavement T-shirt and a crush on Winona Ryder next?) Some observers have doubted he can get anywhere with his pitch, though. Ana Marie Cox, for instance, called him a “Gen-X Fraud.” Take away Rubio’s biography and look at his positions and he becomes less the voice of his generation and more Benjamin Button. If I told you about a candidate that was anti-marriage equality, anti-immigration reform (for now), anti-pot decriminalization, pro-government surveillance, and in favor of international intervention but against doing something about climate change, what would you guess the candidate’s age to be? On all of those issues, Rubio’s position is not the one shared by most young people. The Guardian dubbed him the “John McCain of the millennial set,” which isn’t fair to McCain, who at least has averred that climate change exists.It’s not clear if his fellow Xers are persuaded. But weirdly, Rubio seems to be getting through to millennials much better than we’d expect, given their reputation for liberalism. An insightful Slate story based on a new NBC News poll describes Rubio but matching Hillary Clinton with voters from 18 to 34 -- despite the tendency of Democrats to capture the young -- and slightly beating her (48 to 45 percent) among all voters. As friendly and sane as Rubio might appear on the surface — considering the current GOP competition — the idea of him becoming president is chilling. "I think Marco is a severe conservative, really far to the right, but probably the most talented spokesman the severe right could ever hope for," Dan Gelber, who led Florida House Democrats while Rubio served as speaker of the house, told NBC News. "He has a televangelical ability to communicate.” Mother Jones describes his energy plan as “Drill, Drill, Drill, and Drill Some More.” His conservative position on the environment, as well as on minimum wage, abortion, marijuana, and other issues, has him out of step with a lot of Gen X voters. Even scarier is the thought that Rubio – though he was born in 1971 – is in some ways culturally a millennial, just part of a rising conservative wedge. (He’s got their soaring optimism and love of social media.) And there may be a wave of right-leaning millennials on their way, anyway. As Jamelle Bouie writes for Slate, these younger millennials are very different than the young voters who helped elect Obama:
…the most liberal millennials are those that came of age under President George W. Bush, while the most conservative ones are those that came of political age under President Obama and have faced a sluggish and stagnant economy. Far from embracing Rubio and the Republican Party, these voters may just be skeptical of the Democratic Party’s ability to deliver economic growth and opportunity. To this point, the November unemployment rate was 15.3 percent for people aged 18 to 19, and 9.6 percent for people aged 20 to 24.Similarly, the New York Times has reported that women in their 20s don’t seem to be as dedicated to Hillary as older generations. She can't count on them. Rubio, then, seems to have the demographic tide on his side. So who can stop his momentum? Gen Xers don’t have the numbers that the Boomers and millennials do. But we still vote. Rubio may numerically one of us, but he’s also a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Here’s a call to other Xers: Put down your Liz Phair and Public Enemy LPs, turn off your Noah Baumbach movies, and call this guy out when he speaks for his generation. His birthday may make him seem like one of us, but as Chuck D would say, don’t believe the hype.
At least since he officially announced his race for the presidency in April, Marco Rubio has been playing himself up as the young guy in the mix. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new American century,” he said at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton, he continued: “Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.” He’s directed the same kind of rhetoric toward Jeb Bush back when he was a threat. So whether he's claiming to be the youngest guy in the room or pledging his Gen X bona fides – like his fondness for Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur, and West Coast hip hop – Rubio has shrewdly positioned himself as the youthful (for the office, anyway) alternative to the Boomer candidates. (Is a Pavement T-shirt and a crush on Winona Ryder next?) Some observers have doubted he can get anywhere with his pitch, though. Ana Marie Cox, for instance, called him a “Gen-X Fraud.” Take away Rubio’s biography and look at his positions and he becomes less the voice of his generation and more Benjamin Button. If I told you about a candidate that was anti-marriage equality, anti-immigration reform (for now), anti-pot decriminalization, pro-government surveillance, and in favor of international intervention but against doing something about climate change, what would you guess the candidate’s age to be? On all of those issues, Rubio’s position is not the one shared by most young people. The Guardian dubbed him the “John McCain of the millennial set,” which isn’t fair to McCain, who at least has averred that climate change exists.It’s not clear if his fellow Xers are persuaded. But weirdly, Rubio seems to be getting through to millennials much better than we’d expect, given their reputation for liberalism. An insightful Slate story based on a new NBC News poll describes Rubio but matching Hillary Clinton with voters from 18 to 34 -- despite the tendency of Democrats to capture the young -- and slightly beating her (48 to 45 percent) among all voters. As friendly and sane as Rubio might appear on the surface — considering the current GOP competition — the idea of him becoming president is chilling. "I think Marco is a severe conservative, really far to the right, but probably the most talented spokesman the severe right could ever hope for," Dan Gelber, who led Florida House Democrats while Rubio served as speaker of the house, told NBC News. "He has a televangelical ability to communicate.” Mother Jones describes his energy plan as “Drill, Drill, Drill, and Drill Some More.” His conservative position on the environment, as well as on minimum wage, abortion, marijuana, and other issues, has him out of step with a lot of Gen X voters. Even scarier is the thought that Rubio – though he was born in 1971 – is in some ways culturally a millennial, just part of a rising conservative wedge. (He’s got their soaring optimism and love of social media.) And there may be a wave of right-leaning millennials on their way, anyway. As Jamelle Bouie writes for Slate, these younger millennials are very different than the young voters who helped elect Obama:
…the most liberal millennials are those that came of age under President George W. Bush, while the most conservative ones are those that came of political age under President Obama and have faced a sluggish and stagnant economy. Far from embracing Rubio and the Republican Party, these voters may just be skeptical of the Democratic Party’s ability to deliver economic growth and opportunity. To this point, the November unemployment rate was 15.3 percent for people aged 18 to 19, and 9.6 percent for people aged 20 to 24.Similarly, the New York Times has reported that women in their 20s don’t seem to be as dedicated to Hillary as older generations. She can't count on them. Rubio, then, seems to have the demographic tide on his side. So who can stop his momentum? Gen Xers don’t have the numbers that the Boomers and millennials do. But we still vote. Rubio may numerically one of us, but he’s also a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Here’s a call to other Xers: Put down your Liz Phair and Public Enemy LPs, turn off your Noah Baumbach movies, and call this guy out when he speaks for his generation. His birthday may make him seem like one of us, but as Chuck D would say, don’t believe the hype.
At least since he officially announced his race for the presidency in April, Marco Rubio has been playing himself up as the young guy in the mix. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new American century,” he said at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton, he continued: “Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.” He’s directed the same kind of rhetoric toward Jeb Bush back when he was a threat. So whether he's claiming to be the youngest guy in the room or pledging his Gen X bona fides – like his fondness for Dr. Dre, Tupac Shakur, and West Coast hip hop – Rubio has shrewdly positioned himself as the youthful (for the office, anyway) alternative to the Boomer candidates. (Is a Pavement T-shirt and a crush on Winona Ryder next?) Some observers have doubted he can get anywhere with his pitch, though. Ana Marie Cox, for instance, called him a “Gen-X Fraud.” Take away Rubio’s biography and look at his positions and he becomes less the voice of his generation and more Benjamin Button. If I told you about a candidate that was anti-marriage equality, anti-immigration reform (for now), anti-pot decriminalization, pro-government surveillance, and in favor of international intervention but against doing something about climate change, what would you guess the candidate’s age to be? On all of those issues, Rubio’s position is not the one shared by most young people. The Guardian dubbed him the “John McCain of the millennial set,” which isn’t fair to McCain, who at least has averred that climate change exists.It’s not clear if his fellow Xers are persuaded. But weirdly, Rubio seems to be getting through to millennials much better than we’d expect, given their reputation for liberalism. An insightful Slate story based on a new NBC News poll describes Rubio but matching Hillary Clinton with voters from 18 to 34 -- despite the tendency of Democrats to capture the young -- and slightly beating her (48 to 45 percent) among all voters. As friendly and sane as Rubio might appear on the surface — considering the current GOP competition — the idea of him becoming president is chilling. "I think Marco is a severe conservative, really far to the right, but probably the most talented spokesman the severe right could ever hope for," Dan Gelber, who led Florida House Democrats while Rubio served as speaker of the house, told NBC News. "He has a televangelical ability to communicate.” Mother Jones describes his energy plan as “Drill, Drill, Drill, and Drill Some More.” His conservative position on the environment, as well as on minimum wage, abortion, marijuana, and other issues, has him out of step with a lot of Gen X voters. Even scarier is the thought that Rubio – though he was born in 1971 – is in some ways culturally a millennial, just part of a rising conservative wedge. (He’s got their soaring optimism and love of social media.) And there may be a wave of right-leaning millennials on their way, anyway. As Jamelle Bouie writes for Slate, these younger millennials are very different than the young voters who helped elect Obama:
…the most liberal millennials are those that came of age under President George W. Bush, while the most conservative ones are those that came of political age under President Obama and have faced a sluggish and stagnant economy. Far from embracing Rubio and the Republican Party, these voters may just be skeptical of the Democratic Party’s ability to deliver economic growth and opportunity. To this point, the November unemployment rate was 15.3 percent for people aged 18 to 19, and 9.6 percent for people aged 20 to 24.Similarly, the New York Times has reported that women in their 20s don’t seem to be as dedicated to Hillary as older generations. She can't count on them. Rubio, then, seems to have the demographic tide on his side. So who can stop his momentum? Gen Xers don’t have the numbers that the Boomers and millennials do. But we still vote. Rubio may numerically one of us, but he’s also a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Here’s a call to other Xers: Put down your Liz Phair and Public Enemy LPs, turn off your Noah Baumbach movies, and call this guy out when he speaks for his generation. His birthday may make him seem like one of us, but as Chuck D would say, don’t believe the hype.
Republicans, where the hell is your outrage?! Despite horrific rally video, GOP leaders won’t stand up against hate and behavior of Donald Trump’s supporters
Are Republicans ever going to step up and take responsibility for reining in the worst elements of their party? At Monday night's Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas, Buzzfeed reporters caught a disturbing video of security piling up on a black protester while an angry Trump supporter yells, "Light the motherfucker on fire!" This follows other incidents, such as an attack on a black protester at an Alabama Trump rally and two Trump supporters beating up a homeless man because they thought he might be an undocumented immigrant. There's also been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country, and while none have been directly connected to Trump, having the frontrunner of the Republican Party spouting off about bans on Muslims entering the U.S. can't be helping things. Republicans have trafficked for decades in sowing white resentment for political gain, of course, but until now, Republican leaders had instituted some checks to keep the racism from getting too overt or violent. But now that practice seems to have disappeared. George W. Bush may have exploited American ignorance about the size and diversity of the Muslim world in using 9/11 as a pretense to invade Iraq, but he also took pains to discourage hate at home. "America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality," Bush said in an Eid Al-Fitr speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. in 2002. In a similar speech in 2004, Bush said, "Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind." He was known to repeatedly emphasize a belief that most Muslims are "peaceful" and their faith is "peaceful," the kind of language that conservatives scoff at when it comes from President Barack Obama now. Similarly, Sen. John McCain in 2008 stepped up to the plate while running for president and pushed back against the overtly racist elements in his own party. The conspiracy theory holding that Obama is a "secret Muslim," a terrorist supporter and was hiding the truth of his birthplace had already taken hold in the party by then, and one woman at a forum asked McCain about it in October of that year. "He's a decent family man" and a "citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues," McCain shot back, while also denying that Obama was, to quote the woman, "an Arab." "Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States," he also said, even though the crowd booed him. This isn't about giving Republicans of the past a cookie. They had repulsive policies, often rooted in racism. But there used to be a sense of going too far, and that sense seems to have evaporated completely. Trump clearly has no intention of offering leadership on this front. As my colleague Chauncey DeVega pointed out, Trump's response in the past to racist violence done in his name has been chuckling and supportive. This fits in with Trump's general strategy, which I laid out last week, of simply pandering as hard as he can to the worst elements of his party, letting their bigotries lead the way. But what is surprising is how little pushback you're getting from other Republican politicians. While other Republicans are critical of Trump's more asinine statements, you almost never see any candidate who is willing to speak out about the growing racism on the right, much less link Trump's statements to this violent, bigoted behavior. Having someone do what Bush or McCain did, which is openly ask conservatives to tone it down and be respectful of other people who are different, seems completely out of the question. Same story with the conservative media, whose responses to this growing ugliness tend to range from ignoring it to making excuses for it. (Shepard Smith being the forever-struggling exception to the rule.) It's baffling. You would think that the conservative media and Republican establishment, both of whom want a more suitable candidate than Trump for the general election, would grab every opportunity they could to rein in the proto-fascists of their party and try to put forward a friendlier, more moderate face for their party going into such a crucial election. The sad truth of the matter is that conservative leaders are scared. In the past, efforts from those on high to put a hard limit on how far the racism goes tended to be effective, but nowadays, the conservative base simple rebels against limits like a bunch of five-year-olds who are not going to take a nap. To stand up against Trump or, more importantly, his out-of-control followers means that you will be summarily dismissed as a member of the "establishment" and probably a secret liberal. The Man is trying to get them down with all this political correctness, dude, and conservatives aren't going to take it any longer. Conservatives used to, however begrudgingly, accept instructions to keep a lid on the worst excesses, but these days, the zeitgeist is to let it all hang out. What changed? It's easy to blame Trump, of course, but that would be wrong. If you watch that video of McCain chastening his supporters in '08, you can see that the shift was already underway. The crowd boos McCain, loudly, for asking them to be a little less unhinged. They aren't in full rebellion yet, but things are definitely heading that way. In the past seven-and-a-half years, the conservative base has been practicing its skills at deflecting any attempts by conservative leaders who want to calm them down. Now they are the ninja masters of rationalizing their stupid beliefs in the face of any evidence to the contrary. David Weigel at the Washington Post recently sit in on a focus group, run by the conservative media mastermind Frank Luntz, of Trump supporters, and what he discovered was that these folks can dodge and weave and block criticism like nobody's business. Are Republicans ever going to step up and take responsibility for reining in the worst elements of their party? At Monday night's Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas, Buzzfeed reporters caught a disturbing video of security piling up on a black protester while an angry Trump supporter yells, "Light the motherfucker on fire!" This follows other incidents, such as an attack on a black protester at an Alabama Trump rally and two Trump supporters beating up a homeless man because they thought he might be an undocumented immigrant. There's also been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country, and while none have been directly connected to Trump, having the frontrunner of the Republican Party spouting off about bans on Muslims entering the U.S. can't be helping things. Republicans have trafficked for decades in sowing white resentment for political gain, of course, but until now, Republican leaders had instituted some checks to keep the racism from getting too overt or violent. But now that practice seems to have disappeared. George W. Bush may have exploited American ignorance about the size and diversity of the Muslim world in using 9/11 as a pretense to invade Iraq, but he also took pains to discourage hate at home. "America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality," Bush said in an Eid Al-Fitr speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. in 2002. In a similar speech in 2004, Bush said, "Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind." He was known to repeatedly emphasize a belief that most Muslims are "peaceful" and their faith is "peaceful," the kind of language that conservatives scoff at when it comes from President Barack Obama now. Similarly, Sen. John McCain in 2008 stepped up to the plate while running for president and pushed back against the overtly racist elements in his own party. The conspiracy theory holding that Obama is a "secret Muslim," a terrorist supporter and was hiding the truth of his birthplace had already taken hold in the party by then, and one woman at a forum asked McCain about it in October of that year. "He's a decent family man" and a "citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues," McCain shot back, while also denying that Obama was, to quote the woman, "an Arab." "Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States," he also said, even though the crowd booed him. This isn't about giving Republicans of the past a cookie. They had repulsive policies, often rooted in racism. But there used to be a sense of going too far, and that sense seems to have evaporated completely. Trump clearly has no intention of offering leadership on this front. As my colleague Chauncey DeVega pointed out, Trump's response in the past to racist violence done in his name has been chuckling and supportive. This fits in with Trump's general strategy, which I laid out last week, of simply pandering as hard as he can to the worst elements of his party, letting their bigotries lead the way. But what is surprising is how little pushback you're getting from other Republican politicians. While other Republicans are critical of Trump's more asinine statements, you almost never see any candidate who is willing to speak out about the growing racism on the right, much less link Trump's statements to this violent, bigoted behavior. Having someone do what Bush or McCain did, which is openly ask conservatives to tone it down and be respectful of other people who are different, seems completely out of the question. Same story with the conservative media, whose responses to this growing ugliness tend to range from ignoring it to making excuses for it. (Shepard Smith being the forever-struggling exception to the rule.) It's baffling. You would think that the conservative media and Republican establishment, both of whom want a more suitable candidate than Trump for the general election, would grab every opportunity they could to rein in the proto-fascists of their party and try to put forward a friendlier, more moderate face for their party going into such a crucial election. The sad truth of the matter is that conservative leaders are scared. In the past, efforts from those on high to put a hard limit on how far the racism goes tended to be effective, but nowadays, the conservative base simple rebels against limits like a bunch of five-year-olds who are not going to take a nap. To stand up against Trump or, more importantly, his out-of-control followers means that you will be summarily dismissed as a member of the "establishment" and probably a secret liberal. The Man is trying to get them down with all this political correctness, dude, and conservatives aren't going to take it any longer. Conservatives used to, however begrudgingly, accept instructions to keep a lid on the worst excesses, but these days, the zeitgeist is to let it all hang out. What changed? It's easy to blame Trump, of course, but that would be wrong. If you watch that video of McCain chastening his supporters in '08, you can see that the shift was already underway. The crowd boos McCain, loudly, for asking them to be a little less unhinged. They aren't in full rebellion yet, but things are definitely heading that way. In the past seven-and-a-half years, the conservative base has been practicing its skills at deflecting any attempts by conservative leaders who want to calm them down. Now they are the ninja masters of rationalizing their stupid beliefs in the face of any evidence to the contrary. David Weigel at the Washington Post recently sit in on a focus group, run by the conservative media mastermind Frank Luntz, of Trump supporters, and what he discovered was that these folks can dodge and weave and block criticism like nobody's business.
Participants derided the mainstream media, accusing reporters of covering snippets of Trump quotes when the full context would have validated him. They cited news sources they trusted — Breitbart News was one example — to refute what they were being told. “You know what Trump does?” said Teresa Collier, a 65-year-old retiree. “He says something completely crazy, and I’m like, ‘Oh, my God!’ Then he dials back and starts explaining it and saying how he’d do it, and it makes sense.”Every criticism of Trump was deflected with accusations that the critics were just being haters. Sarah Palin, for instance, pulled a similar stunt as the focus group attendees, insisting that the negative reaction to Trump's call for a Muslim travel ban was "knee-jerk" and the result of not letting him "finish the conversation." Offering leadership and modeling better behavior just doesn't work on the conservative base any more. They're just going to scoff at you like you're a parent trying to trick kids into eating broccoli by putting some cheese on it. So while it's distressing to see Republican leaders just stand by, twiddling their thumbs while things spin completely out of control, it's also hard to deny that anything else they could do would probably just make it worse. Look at what happened to John Boehner, after all. Even the slightest hint that he might try to moderate his party's worst tendencies resulted in him being tossed out on his ass. That's just how they roll these days. Why? The reasons are probably complex, but lately, one of the biggest factors seems to be that the conservative base feels they have nothing to lose anymore. Most of them are getting on in years and they've been voting for Republicans for decades and yet they continue not to win the culture war. If anything, they're losing: Gay marriage is legal, we have a black man as president, single women keep having sex, and the country keeps getting more racially diverse. They've tried it the other way, where you bundle up your bigotries in coded language and try to present a softer, gentler face to the world. It didn't work. So now you've got a huge chunk of conservatives backing Trump and flashing the Nazi salute at anyone who looks at them askance for it. It's a temper tantrum many years in the making, one that Republican leaders are helpless to stop.
Are Republicans ever going to step up and take responsibility for reining in the worst elements of their party? At Monday night's Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas, Buzzfeed reporters caught a disturbing video of security piling up on a black protester while an angry Trump supporter yells, "Light the motherfucker on fire!" This follows other incidents, such as an attack on a black protester at an Alabama Trump rally and two Trump supporters beating up a homeless man because they thought he might be an undocumented immigrant. There's also been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country, and while none have been directly connected to Trump, having the frontrunner of the Republican Party spouting off about bans on Muslims entering the U.S. can't be helping things. Republicans have trafficked for decades in sowing white resentment for political gain, of course, but until now, Republican leaders had instituted some checks to keep the racism from getting too overt or violent. But now that practice seems to have disappeared. George W. Bush may have exploited American ignorance about the size and diversity of the Muslim world in using 9/11 as a pretense to invade Iraq, but he also took pains to discourage hate at home. "America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality," Bush said in an Eid Al-Fitr speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. in 2002. In a similar speech in 2004, Bush said, "Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind." He was known to repeatedly emphasize a belief that most Muslims are "peaceful" and their faith is "peaceful," the kind of language that conservatives scoff at when it comes from President Barack Obama now. Similarly, Sen. John McCain in 2008 stepped up to the plate while running for president and pushed back against the overtly racist elements in his own party. The conspiracy theory holding that Obama is a "secret Muslim," a terrorist supporter and was hiding the truth of his birthplace had already taken hold in the party by then, and one woman at a forum asked McCain about it in October of that year. "He's a decent family man" and a "citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues," McCain shot back, while also denying that Obama was, to quote the woman, "an Arab." "Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States," he also said, even though the crowd booed him. This isn't about giving Republicans of the past a cookie. They had repulsive policies, often rooted in racism. But there used to be a sense of going too far, and that sense seems to have evaporated completely. Trump clearly has no intention of offering leadership on this front. As my colleague Chauncey DeVega pointed out, Trump's response in the past to racist violence done in his name has been chuckling and supportive. This fits in with Trump's general strategy, which I laid out last week, of simply pandering as hard as he can to the worst elements of his party, letting their bigotries lead the way. But what is surprising is how little pushback you're getting from other Republican politicians. While other Republicans are critical of Trump's more asinine statements, you almost never see any candidate who is willing to speak out about the growing racism on the right, much less link Trump's statements to this violent, bigoted behavior. Having someone do what Bush or McCain did, which is openly ask conservatives to tone it down and be respectful of other people who are different, seems completely out of the question. Same story with the conservative media, whose responses to this growing ugliness tend to range from ignoring it to making excuses for it. (Shepard Smith being the forever-struggling exception to the rule.) It's baffling. You would think that the conservative media and Republican establishment, both of whom want a more suitable candidate than Trump for the general election, would grab every opportunity they could to rein in the proto-fascists of their party and try to put forward a friendlier, more moderate face for their party going into such a crucial election. The sad truth of the matter is that conservative leaders are scared. In the past, efforts from those on high to put a hard limit on how far the racism goes tended to be effective, but nowadays, the conservative base simple rebels against limits like a bunch of five-year-olds who are not going to take a nap. To stand up against Trump or, more importantly, his out-of-control followers means that you will be summarily dismissed as a member of the "establishment" and probably a secret liberal. The Man is trying to get them down with all this political correctness, dude, and conservatives aren't going to take it any longer. Conservatives used to, however begrudgingly, accept instructions to keep a lid on the worst excesses, but these days, the zeitgeist is to let it all hang out. What changed? It's easy to blame Trump, of course, but that would be wrong. If you watch that video of McCain chastening his supporters in '08, you can see that the shift was already underway. The crowd boos McCain, loudly, for asking them to be a little less unhinged. They aren't in full rebellion yet, but things are definitely heading that way. In the past seven-and-a-half years, the conservative base has been practicing its skills at deflecting any attempts by conservative leaders who want to calm them down. Now they are the ninja masters of rationalizing their stupid beliefs in the face of any evidence to the contrary. David Weigel at the Washington Post recently sit in on a focus group, run by the conservative media mastermind Frank Luntz, of Trump supporters, and what he discovered was that these folks can dodge and weave and block criticism like nobody's business. Participants derided the mainstream media, accusing reporters of covering snippets of Trump quotes when the full context would have validated him. They cited news sources they trusted — Breitbart News was one example — to refute what they were being told. “You know what Trump does?” said Teresa Collier, a 65-year-old retiree. “He says something completely crazy, and I’m like, ‘Oh, my God!’ Then he dials back and starts explaining it and saying how he’d do it, and it makes sense.”Every criticism of Trump was deflected with accusations that the critics were just being haters. Sarah Palin, for instance, pulled a similar stunt as the focus group attendees, insisting that the negative reaction to Trump's call for a Muslim travel ban was "knee-jerk" and the result of not letting him "finish the conversation." Offering leadership and modeling better behavior just doesn't work on the conservative base any more. They're just going to scoff at you like you're a parent trying to trick kids into eating broccoli by putting some cheese on it. So while it's distressing to see Republican leaders just stand by, twiddling their thumbs while things spin completely out of control, it's also hard to deny that anything else they could do would probably just make it worse. Look at what happened to John Boehner, after all. Even the slightest hint that he might try to moderate his party's worst tendencies resulted in him being tossed out on his ass. That's just how they roll these days. Why? The reasons are probably complex, but lately, one of the biggest factors seems to be that the conservative base feels they have nothing to lose anymore. Most of them are getting on in years and they've been voting for Republicans for decades and yet they continue not to win the culture war. If anything, they're losing: Gay marriage is legal, we have a black man as president, single women keep having sex, and the country keeps getting more racially diverse. They've tried it the other way, where you bundle up your bigotries in coded language and try to present a softer, gentler face to the world. It didn't work. So now you've got a huge chunk of conservatives backing Trump and flashing the Nazi salute at anyone who looks at them askance for it. It's a temper tantrum many years in the making, one that Republican leaders are helpless to stop.
Racism in the fashion world: Alexander McQueen discrimination lawsuit reveals on-going problems
The last thing you should do in fashion is repeat yourself — especially when it comes to lawsuits. But if it feels like Alexander McQueen and its brand owner Kering Americas Inc. are experiencing a corporate attack of deja vu, it's not your imagination. Late last week week the fashion house became the subject of a racial discrimination lawsuit — its third in as many years. The plaintiffs — inventory supervisor Christopher Policard and inventory clerk Duane Davis — charge that the company "systematically rejects African-American job applicants who seek positions on the sales floor where they can be seen by customers or positions where they might have authority over white employees, relegating the few African-Americans who are hired to menial positions behind the scenes." The suit also contends that the two men have been left in view of customers when "Kering searches them for theft… White employees, on the other hand, are screened for theft after closing and in private," and claims they have been "falsely accused of theft without evidence." More damningly, the men contend that been forced to do "heavy labor… and other menial, demeaning tasks that white employees are not asked to deal with," and that since they issued a complaint in September their supervisors have taken "no steps were taken to address the discriminatory mistreatment and it continued unabated or worsened," and that they set on "a course of action designed to denigrate, punish and retaliate against them for making their complaint, intimidate them into withdrawing it or force them to leave the company." Back in 2013, Othman Ibela, a security guard at the company's downtown store, filed a suit that claimed a store sales clerk "repeatedly made jokes about me running nude in Africa with a spear in my hand" and that store manager Catherine Flynn mocked his why Gabonese accent and asked him why "Muslims were always killing people." (Flynn has also been named in this new lawsuit as well.) Also in 2013, the company was hit with a suit from former saleswoman Moselle Blanco, who claimed that during her decade with the company her boss called her "burrito face," "taco smoke" and "Goya princess," and told her "She had greasy hands like a Mexican and that he did not want any product to 'get messy.'" She claimed she was fired on untrue accusations of inappropriate behavior after she complained, and her suit revealed that two other employees — including Ibela — had been fired after they complained of discrimination as well. As ThinkProgress notes, the accusations of racism against McQueen are not unusual in the industry. A 2003 lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch ended in a $40 million settlement "to rejected applicants and employees who experienced discrimination," as well as the creation of the post Vice President for Diversity. Earlier this year, ready-to-wear chain Zara was hit a $40 million suit from former general counsel Ian Jack Miller and others — including the director of expansion for North and South American, Moises Costas Rodriguez — over charges of, among other discriminatory behaviors, anti semitism. Miller claims that once his religion became known, "he found himself cut out of crucial meetings and email chains; his annual pay raises were cut from over 15 percent to three percent." And in 2011, then Dior head John Galliano was fired after an anti semitic rant in which he told he nearby neighbors at a restaurant that "I love Hitler. People like you would be dead today." (He's now at Maison Margiela.) At the time, Dior spokeswoman Natalie Portman spoke out about the incident, saying, "As an individual who is proud to be Jewish, I will not be associated with Mr. Galliano in any way. I hope at the very least, these terrible comments remind us to reflect and act upon combating these still-existing prejudices that are the opposite of all that is beautiful." If you believe the claims of the people who've brought lawsuits against the fashion industry brands, it's hard not to notice the hypocrisy -- like a designer who makes an anti-semitic remarks with seemingly no sense of connection to the fact that the company was being represented by a Jewish woman. Or one that attires powerful women like Michele Obama but reportedly mistreats its own black employees. Ibela told the New York Post in 2013 that African American customers were routinely ignored, but "When Beyoncé came in, everyone wanted to help." It's a kind of selective racial blindness. And attorney Eric Baum, who is representing Policard and Davis, told WWD recently, “Since 2013 the Alexander McQueen and Kering organizations have been on notice of racial discrimination claims but apparently have done very little if anything to fix the problem. The mistreatment of our clients shows that they have failed in this endeavor." 
The last thing you should do in fashion is repeat yourself — especially when it comes to lawsuits. But if it feels like Alexander McQueen and its brand owner Kering Americas Inc. are experiencing a corporate attack of deja vu, it's not your imagination. Late last week week the fashion house became the subject of a racial discrimination lawsuit — its third in as many years. The plaintiffs — inventory supervisor Christopher Policard and inventory clerk Duane Davis — charge that the company "systematically rejects African-American job applicants who seek positions on the sales floor where they can be seen by customers or positions where they might have authority over white employees, relegating the few African-Americans who are hired to menial positions behind the scenes." The suit also contends that the two men have been left in view of customers when "Kering searches them for theft… White employees, on the other hand, are screened for theft after closing and in private," and claims they have been "falsely accused of theft without evidence." More damningly, the men contend that been forced to do "heavy labor… and other menial, demeaning tasks that white employees are not asked to deal with," and that since they issued a complaint in September their supervisors have taken "no steps were taken to address the discriminatory mistreatment and it continued unabated or worsened," and that they set on "a course of action designed to denigrate, punish and retaliate against them for making their complaint, intimidate them into withdrawing it or force them to leave the company." Back in 2013, Othman Ibela, a security guard at the company's downtown store, filed a suit that claimed a store sales clerk "repeatedly made jokes about me running nude in Africa with a spear in my hand" and that store manager Catherine Flynn mocked his why Gabonese accent and asked him why "Muslims were always killing people." (Flynn has also been named in this new lawsuit as well.) Also in 2013, the company was hit with a suit from former saleswoman Moselle Blanco, who claimed that during her decade with the company her boss called her "burrito face," "taco smoke" and "Goya princess," and told her "She had greasy hands like a Mexican and that he did not want any product to 'get messy.'" She claimed she was fired on untrue accusations of inappropriate behavior after she complained, and her suit revealed that two other employees — including Ibela — had been fired after they complained of discrimination as well. As ThinkProgress notes, the accusations of racism against McQueen are not unusual in the industry. A 2003 lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch ended in a $40 million settlement "to rejected applicants and employees who experienced discrimination," as well as the creation of the post Vice President for Diversity. Earlier this year, ready-to-wear chain Zara was hit a $40 million suit from former general counsel Ian Jack Miller and others — including the director of expansion for North and South American, Moises Costas Rodriguez — over charges of, among other discriminatory behaviors, anti semitism. Miller claims that once his religion became known, "he found himself cut out of crucial meetings and email chains; his annual pay raises were cut from over 15 percent to three percent." And in 2011, then Dior head John Galliano was fired after an anti semitic rant in which he told he nearby neighbors at a restaurant that "I love Hitler. People like you would be dead today." (He's now at Maison Margiela.) At the time, Dior spokeswoman Natalie Portman spoke out about the incident, saying, "As an individual who is proud to be Jewish, I will not be associated with Mr. Galliano in any way. I hope at the very least, these terrible comments remind us to reflect and act upon combating these still-existing prejudices that are the opposite of all that is beautiful." If you believe the claims of the people who've brought lawsuits against the fashion industry brands, it's hard not to notice the hypocrisy -- like a designer who makes an anti-semitic remarks with seemingly no sense of connection to the fact that the company was being represented by a Jewish woman. Or one that attires powerful women like Michele Obama but reportedly mistreats its own black employees. Ibela told the New York Post in 2013 that African American customers were routinely ignored, but "When Beyoncé came in, everyone wanted to help." It's a kind of selective racial blindness. And attorney Eric Baum, who is representing Policard and Davis, told WWD recently, “Since 2013 the Alexander McQueen and Kering organizations have been on notice of racial discrimination claims but apparently have done very little if anything to fix the problem. The mistreatment of our clients shows that they have failed in this endeavor."
The last thing you should do in fashion is repeat yourself — especially when it comes to lawsuits. But if it feels like Alexander McQueen and its brand owner Kering Americas Inc. are experiencing a corporate attack of deja vu, it's not your imagination. Late last week week the fashion house became the subject of a racial discrimination lawsuit — its third in as many years. The plaintiffs — inventory supervisor Christopher Policard and inventory clerk Duane Davis — charge that the company "systematically rejects African-American job applicants who seek positions on the sales floor where they can be seen by customers or positions where they might have authority over white employees, relegating the few African-Americans who are hired to menial positions behind the scenes." The suit also contends that the two men have been left in view of customers when "Kering searches them for theft… White employees, on the other hand, are screened for theft after closing and in private," and claims they have been "falsely accused of theft without evidence." More damningly, the men contend that been forced to do "heavy labor… and other menial, demeaning tasks that white employees are not asked to deal with," and that since they issued a complaint in September their supervisors have taken "no steps were taken to address the discriminatory mistreatment and it continued unabated or worsened," and that they set on "a course of action designed to denigrate, punish and retaliate against them for making their complaint, intimidate them into withdrawing it or force them to leave the company." Back in 2013, Othman Ibela, a security guard at the company's downtown store, filed a suit that claimed a store sales clerk "repeatedly made jokes about me running nude in Africa with a spear in my hand" and that store manager Catherine Flynn mocked his why Gabonese accent and asked him why "Muslims were always killing people." (Flynn has also been named in this new lawsuit as well.) Also in 2013, the company was hit with a suit from former saleswoman Moselle Blanco, who claimed that during her decade with the company her boss called her "burrito face," "taco smoke" and "Goya princess," and told her "She had greasy hands like a Mexican and that he did not want any product to 'get messy.'" She claimed she was fired on untrue accusations of inappropriate behavior after she complained, and her suit revealed that two other employees — including Ibela — had been fired after they complained of discrimination as well. As ThinkProgress notes, the accusations of racism against McQueen are not unusual in the industry. A 2003 lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch ended in a $40 million settlement "to rejected applicants and employees who experienced discrimination," as well as the creation of the post Vice President for Diversity. Earlier this year, ready-to-wear chain Zara was hit a $40 million suit from former general counsel Ian Jack Miller and others — including the director of expansion for North and South American, Moises Costas Rodriguez — over charges of, among other discriminatory behaviors, anti semitism. Miller claims that once his religion became known, "he found himself cut out of crucial meetings and email chains; his annual pay raises were cut from over 15 percent to three percent." And in 2011, then Dior head John Galliano was fired after an anti semitic rant in which he told he nearby neighbors at a restaurant that "I love Hitler. People like you would be dead today." (He's now at Maison Margiela.) At the time, Dior spokeswoman Natalie Portman spoke out about the incident, saying, "As an individual who is proud to be Jewish, I will not be associated with Mr. Galliano in any way. I hope at the very least, these terrible comments remind us to reflect and act upon combating these still-existing prejudices that are the opposite of all that is beautiful." If you believe the claims of the people who've brought lawsuits against the fashion industry brands, it's hard not to notice the hypocrisy -- like a designer who makes an anti-semitic remarks with seemingly no sense of connection to the fact that the company was being represented by a Jewish woman. Or one that attires powerful women like Michele Obama but reportedly mistreats its own black employees. Ibela told the New York Post in 2013 that African American customers were routinely ignored, but "When Beyoncé came in, everyone wanted to help." It's a kind of selective racial blindness. And attorney Eric Baum, who is representing Policard and Davis, told WWD recently, “Since 2013 the Alexander McQueen and Kering organizations have been on notice of racial discrimination claims but apparently have done very little if anything to fix the problem. The mistreatment of our clients shows that they have failed in this endeavor."
Robber calls Indian-American store clerk ISIS “terrorist” and shoots him in the face, reports say
A store clerk of Indian descent in Grand Rapids, Michigan was shot in the face by a robber who called him a "terrorist" and insisted he was a member of ISIS, according to news reports. Local media outlet MLive reported that the victim, 34, whose name was not released, recalled the shooter saying "he used to kill people like him in Iraq." Police confirmed the statements. The local Fox affiliate obtained surveillance video footage of the attack. The store owner told Fox reporters that the shooter said "he'd killed people like [the clerk] before in Iraq with no question." Late on Saturday, Dec. 12, the armed robber ordered the clerk into a back room, where he put the barrel of his rifle in the worker's mouth. Afraid for his life, the clerk grabbed the gun, briefly struggled with the shooter, and turned his head. When the robber fired, the bullet went through the worker's cheek, saving his life. The clerk, who suffered non-life-threatening injuries, was taken to the hospital. He quickly recovered and was released. Police are still on the search for the shooter. Surveillance footage shows a man with his face covered by bandanas and a hood, wielding a large rifle. "I don't know why he associated him with terrorism," the store owner told the local Fox affiliate. "Maybe it's because of our skin or because what we look like." The store owner's family, who are also Indian, suggested to MLive that the attack was racially motivated. Gurleen Kaur, whose father owns the store, said "It could've happened to anyone that looks like us." "We're Americans," she added. "We're trying to live normal lives, be Americans." The media reports do not indicate whether the store clerk is or is not Muslim, but the vast majority of Indians are not Muslim. Indian-Americans of the Sikh religion are frequently targeted in hate crimes by people who think they are Muslim. In September, a Sikh American man in Chicago was called "terrorist" and "bin Laden" and subsequently beaten unconscious in his car. 
A store clerk of Indian descent in Grand Rapids, Michigan was shot in the face by a robber who called him a "terrorist" and insisted he was a member of ISIS, according to news reports. Local media outlet MLive reported that the victim, 34, whose name was not released, recalled the shooter saying "he used to kill people like him in Iraq." Police confirmed the statements. The local Fox affiliate obtained surveillance video footage of the attack. The store owner told Fox reporters that the shooter said "he'd killed people like [the clerk] before in Iraq with no question." Late on Saturday, Dec. 12, the armed robber ordered the clerk into a back room, where he put the barrel of his rifle in the worker's mouth. Afraid for his life, the clerk grabbed the gun, briefly struggled with the shooter, and turned his head. When the robber fired, the bullet went through the worker's cheek, saving his life. The clerk, who suffered non-life-threatening injuries, was taken to the hospital. He quickly recovered and was released. Police are still on the search for the shooter. Surveillance footage shows a man with his face covered by bandanas and a hood, wielding a large rifle. "I don't know why he associated him with terrorism," the store owner told the local Fox affiliate. "Maybe it's because of our skin or because what we look like." The store owner's family, who are also Indian, suggested to MLive that the attack was racially motivated. Gurleen Kaur, whose father owns the store, said "It could've happened to anyone that looks like us." "We're Americans," she added. "We're trying to live normal lives, be Americans." The media reports do not indicate whether the store clerk is or is not Muslim, but the vast majority of Indians are not Muslim. Indian-Americans of the Sikh religion are frequently targeted in hate crimes by people who think they are Muslim. In September, a Sikh American man in Chicago was called "terrorist" and "bin Laden" and subsequently beaten unconscious in his car. A store clerk of Indian descent in Grand Rapids, Michigan was shot in the face by a robber who called him a "terrorist" and insisted he was a member of ISIS, according to news reports. Local media outlet MLive reported that the victim, 34, whose name was not released, recalled the shooter saying "he used to kill people like him in Iraq." Police confirmed the statements. The local Fox affiliate obtained surveillance video footage of the attack. The store owner told Fox reporters that the shooter said "he'd killed people like [the clerk] before in Iraq with no question." Late on Saturday, Dec. 12, the armed robber ordered the clerk into a back room, where he put the barrel of his rifle in the worker's mouth. Afraid for his life, the clerk grabbed the gun, briefly struggled with the shooter, and turned his head. When the robber fired, the bullet went through the worker's cheek, saving his life. The clerk, who suffered non-life-threatening injuries, was taken to the hospital. He quickly recovered and was released. Police are still on the search for the shooter. Surveillance footage shows a man with his face covered by bandanas and a hood, wielding a large rifle. "I don't know why he associated him with terrorism," the store owner told the local Fox affiliate. "Maybe it's because of our skin or because what we look like." The store owner's family, who are also Indian, suggested to MLive that the attack was racially motivated. Gurleen Kaur, whose father owns the store, said "It could've happened to anyone that looks like us." "We're Americans," she added. "We're trying to live normal lives, be Americans." The media reports do not indicate whether the store clerk is or is not Muslim, but the vast majority of Indians are not Muslim. Indian-Americans of the Sikh religion are frequently targeted in hate crimes by people who think they are Muslim. In September, a Sikh American man in Chicago was called "terrorist" and "bin Laden" and subsequently beaten unconscious in his car.
A store clerk of Indian descent in Grand Rapids, Michigan was shot in the face by a robber who called him a "terrorist" and insisted he was a member of ISIS, according to news reports. Local media outlet MLive reported that the victim, 34, whose name was not released, recalled the shooter saying "he used to kill people like him in Iraq." Police confirmed the statements. The local Fox affiliate obtained surveillance video footage of the attack. The store owner told Fox reporters that the shooter said "he'd killed people like [the clerk] before in Iraq with no question." Late on Saturday, Dec. 12, the armed robber ordered the clerk into a back room, where he put the barrel of his rifle in the worker's mouth. Afraid for his life, the clerk grabbed the gun, briefly struggled with the shooter, and turned his head. When the robber fired, the bullet went through the worker's cheek, saving his life. The clerk, who suffered non-life-threatening injuries, was taken to the hospital. He quickly recovered and was released. Police are still on the search for the shooter. Surveillance footage shows a man with his face covered by bandanas and a hood, wielding a large rifle. "I don't know why he associated him with terrorism," the store owner told the local Fox affiliate. "Maybe it's because of our skin or because what we look like." The store owner's family, who are also Indian, suggested to MLive that the attack was racially motivated. Gurleen Kaur, whose father owns the store, said "It could've happened to anyone that looks like us." "We're Americans," she added. "We're trying to live normal lives, be Americans." The media reports do not indicate whether the store clerk is or is not Muslim, but the vast majority of Indians are not Muslim. Indian-Americans of the Sikh religion are frequently targeted in hate crimes by people who think they are Muslim. In September, a Sikh American man in Chicago was called "terrorist" and "bin Laden" and subsequently beaten unconscious in his car. A store clerk of Indian descent in Grand Rapids, Michigan was shot in the face by a robber who called him a "terrorist" and insisted he was a member of ISIS, according to news reports. Local media outlet MLive reported that the victim, 34, whose name was not released, recalled the shooter saying "he used to kill people like him in Iraq." Police confirmed the statements. The local Fox affiliate obtained surveillance video footage of the attack. The store owner told Fox reporters that the shooter said "he'd killed people like [the clerk] before in Iraq with no question." Late on Saturday, Dec. 12, the armed robber ordered the clerk into a back room, where he put the barrel of his rifle in the worker's mouth. Afraid for his life, the clerk grabbed the gun, briefly struggled with the shooter, and turned his head. When the robber fired, the bullet went through the worker's cheek, saving his life. The clerk, who suffered non-life-threatening injuries, was taken to the hospital. He quickly recovered and was released. Police are still on the search for the shooter. Surveillance footage shows a man with his face covered by bandanas and a hood, wielding a large rifle. "I don't know why he associated him with terrorism," the store owner told the local Fox affiliate. "Maybe it's because of our skin or because what we look like." The store owner's family, who are also Indian, suggested to MLive that the attack was racially motivated. Gurleen Kaur, whose father owns the store, said "It could've happened to anyone that looks like us." "We're Americans," she added. "We're trying to live normal lives, be Americans." The media reports do not indicate whether the store clerk is or is not Muslim, but the vast majority of Indians are not Muslim. Indian-Americans of the Sikh religion are frequently targeted in hate crimes by people who think they are Muslim. In September, a Sikh American man in Chicago was called "terrorist" and "bin Laden" and subsequently beaten unconscious in his car.
December 14, 2015
An “SNL” mystery solved: This former Weekend Update host once called Tina Fey a very ugly word — and lived to Tweet about it
Tina Fey stopped by The Howard Stern Show today to talk about “Sisters,” the comedy she and Amy Poehler are debuting this week opposite “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” like the bosses that they are, and Stern wanted to dig out the truth of a bit of “Saturday Night Live” gossip he’d heard. Apparently, someone on the show had called Fey the c-word at some point. Who was it? Stern wanted to know. "That's the worst thing you can call a woman." Fey hesitated, hemming and hawing over naming names: “We’ve since made up.” “You were the head writer of ‘Saturday Night Live’ and someone had the nerve to call you a c**t?” Howard asks, incredulously. “Yeah. And I love him so much,” said Fey, clearly agonizing over whether to spill the beans. “It was Colin Quinn,” Fey admitted. “Now why would Colin call you a c**t?” Stern asked. “I was trying to help him with a show he was working on,” she explained. “And I think his anxiety about the writing of the show spilled over. It was really random.” “I couldn’t even guess why,” Fey added. “Usually when someone calls you that you know what you did.” Fey was quick to head off any hint of lingering bad blood between her and her fellow former Weekend Update host, though. “I asked Colin to be on 30 Rock like three times and he turned me down,” Fey said, then assuring Stern that she and Quinn caught up at “SNL 40” and all is fine between them. On Twitter, Quinn corroborated the story, but still left the origins of his anger a mystery: https://twitter.com/iamcolinquinn/sta... (h/t to ) Tina Fey stopped by The Howard Stern Show today to talk about “Sisters,” the comedy she and Amy Poehler are debuting this week opposite “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” like the bosses that they are, and Stern wanted to dig out the truth of a bit of “Saturday Night Live” gossip he’d heard. Apparently, someone on the show had called Fey the c-word at some point. Who was it? Stern wanted to know. "That's the worst thing you can call a woman." Fey hesitated, hemming and hawing over naming names: “We’ve since made up.” “You were the head writer of ‘Saturday Night Live’ and someone had the nerve to call you a c**t?” Howard asks, incredulously. “Yeah. And I love him so much,” said Fey, clearly agonizing over whether to spill the beans. “It was Colin Quinn,” Fey admitted. “Now why would Colin call you a c**t?” Stern asked. “I was trying to help him with a show he was working on,” she explained. “And I think his anxiety about the writing of the show spilled over. It was really random.” “I couldn’t even guess why,” Fey added. “Usually when someone calls you that you know what you did.” Fey was quick to head off any hint of lingering bad blood between her and her fellow former Weekend Update host, though. “I asked Colin to be on 30 Rock like three times and he turned me down,” Fey said, then assuring Stern that she and Quinn caught up at “SNL 40” and all is fine between them. On Twitter, Quinn corroborated the story, but still left the origins of his anger a mystery: https://twitter.com/iamcolinquinn/sta... (h/t to ) Tina Fey stopped by The Howard Stern Show today to talk about “Sisters,” the comedy she and Amy Poehler are debuting this week opposite “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” like the bosses that they are, and Stern wanted to dig out the truth of a bit of “Saturday Night Live” gossip he’d heard. Apparently, someone on the show had called Fey the c-word at some point. Who was it? Stern wanted to know. "That's the worst thing you can call a woman." Fey hesitated, hemming and hawing over naming names: “We’ve since made up.” “You were the head writer of ‘Saturday Night Live’ and someone had the nerve to call you a c**t?” Howard asks, incredulously. “Yeah. And I love him so much,” said Fey, clearly agonizing over whether to spill the beans. “It was Colin Quinn,” Fey admitted. “Now why would Colin call you a c**t?” Stern asked. “I was trying to help him with a show he was working on,” she explained. “And I think his anxiety about the writing of the show spilled over. It was really random.” “I couldn’t even guess why,” Fey added. “Usually when someone calls you that you know what you did.” Fey was quick to head off any hint of lingering bad blood between her and her fellow former Weekend Update host, though. “I asked Colin to be on 30 Rock like three times and he turned me down,” Fey said, then assuring Stern that she and Quinn caught up at “SNL 40” and all is fine between them. On Twitter, Quinn corroborated the story, but still left the origins of his anger a mystery: https://twitter.com/iamcolinquinn/sta... (h/t to
Send your ex a Bieber Bomb: Passive-aggressive break-ups get a diabolical 21st century upgrade
I sometimes fantasize about what I’d say to an ex boyfriend of mine if given the chance. Something cool and caustic that causes a rush of feelings like a gust of wind unhinging a screen door and sweeping through a home, letters and magazines falling to the floor. The words would be heartfelt and appropriate, maybe even lyrical. A new website now allows people to send ex lovers/friends/anyone lovelorn messages in the form of Justin Bieber lyrics. For only a dollar, Bieber Bomb will send the person of your choice texts from an anonymous phone number for twelve hours, using only lyrics from the Biebs’ songs like “Baby,” “What Do You Mean?” and “As Long as You Love Me.” Anyone wishing to see the person’s response (uh, everyone) can pay two dollars for the “Sneak Attack” option that will send you the text conversation. The creator’s of Bieber Bomb already have other lyric-fueled text assaults in development. The Adele Attack promises to be the most soul-crushing (and catchy) in the arsenal. “I’ve forgotten how it felt before the world fell at our feet” is certain to make even the most callous of exes shudder. Whether you’re trying to rekindle the ashes of a former flame, or piss off your friends, it’s an interesting form of communication. Sam Slaughter takes on the myriad methods of communication on our phones this week in an article for the New York Times, and notices how we’ve developed ways to have one-on-one conversations on very public platforms. It’s not uncommon to have conversations in the comment section of a celebrity’s Instagram feed, for example. In many ways, doing so seems safe. We tag a lover in a photo on Facebook or Instagram to relay sentimentality instead of saying it outright. When scorned, we use the lyrics to pop songs to anonymously send our lovers instead of using our actual words. I’m not sure if we’ve been conditioned to conceal thoughts that don’t align with the brands we’ve so meticulously curated for ourselves online, or if we’ve subscribed so strictly to the idea that the person who cares the least has the upper hand that we actually believe it -- almost. But if we’re going out of our way to tag people in photos on arbitrary Instagram accounts, or paying to have lyrics anonymously sent to someone, there’s clearly some level (a great deal, I’d argue) of care still lingering. For as many direct forms of contact that are available at the click of a screen or tap of an iPhone, we seem to go out of our way to make round about implications to people at the forefront of our thoughts. I had an ex subtweet me for a few weeks before finally (at last!) unfollowing me on Twitter. We had the breakup conversation many times before, but it didn’t feel finalized until we were officially removed from each other’s newsfeeds. It was an interesting experience because I registered not only the loss of the relationship, but also how our words -- the ones I had valued so dearly -- were rendered meaningless. The tear-stained conversations over Facetime didn’t mean anything, but the passive aggressive tweets sure as hell did. Bits of our relationship were scattered like ashes for public display on songs and social media, and it took me a while to realize we wouldn’t rise together again like a phoenix. At some point, you accept sparking new flames. I’m all for practical jokes, but sending anonymous smoke signals via texts to an ex seems unnecessary and uncomfortable, like a joke no one laughs at. Sometimes things ought to be left unsaid (and unsent) in the accelerated speed of relationships facilitated by multiple forms of direct and indirect communication, and it seems to take us all a while to finally get the message.I sometimes fantasize about what I’d say to an ex boyfriend of mine if given the chance. Something cool and caustic that causes a rush of feelings like a gust of wind unhinging a screen door and sweeping through a home, letters and magazines falling to the floor. The words would be heartfelt and appropriate, maybe even lyrical. A new website now allows people to send ex lovers/friends/anyone lovelorn messages in the form of Justin Bieber lyrics. For only a dollar, Bieber Bomb will send the person of your choice texts from an anonymous phone number for twelve hours, using only lyrics from the Biebs’ songs like “Baby,” “What Do You Mean?” and “As Long as You Love Me.” Anyone wishing to see the person’s response (uh, everyone) can pay two dollars for the “Sneak Attack” option that will send you the text conversation. The creator’s of Bieber Bomb already have other lyric-fueled text assaults in development. The Adele Attack promises to be the most soul-crushing (and catchy) in the arsenal. “I’ve forgotten how it felt before the world fell at our feet” is certain to make even the most callous of exes shudder. Whether you’re trying to rekindle the ashes of a former flame, or piss off your friends, it’s an interesting form of communication. Sam Slaughter takes on the myriad methods of communication on our phones this week in an article for the New York Times, and notices how we’ve developed ways to have one-on-one conversations on very public platforms. It’s not uncommon to have conversations in the comment section of a celebrity’s Instagram feed, for example. In many ways, doing so seems safe. We tag a lover in a photo on Facebook or Instagram to relay sentimentality instead of saying it outright. When scorned, we use the lyrics to pop songs to anonymously send our lovers instead of using our actual words. I’m not sure if we’ve been conditioned to conceal thoughts that don’t align with the brands we’ve so meticulously curated for ourselves online, or if we’ve subscribed so strictly to the idea that the person who cares the least has the upper hand that we actually believe it -- almost. But if we’re going out of our way to tag people in photos on arbitrary Instagram accounts, or paying to have lyrics anonymously sent to someone, there’s clearly some level (a great deal, I’d argue) of care still lingering. For as many direct forms of contact that are available at the click of a screen or tap of an iPhone, we seem to go out of our way to make round about implications to people at the forefront of our thoughts. I had an ex subtweet me for a few weeks before finally (at last!) unfollowing me on Twitter. We had the breakup conversation many times before, but it didn’t feel finalized until we were officially removed from each other’s newsfeeds. It was an interesting experience because I registered not only the loss of the relationship, but also how our words -- the ones I had valued so dearly -- were rendered meaningless. The tear-stained conversations over Facetime didn’t mean anything, but the passive aggressive tweets sure as hell did. Bits of our relationship were scattered like ashes for public display on songs and social media, and it took me a while to realize we wouldn’t rise together again like a phoenix. At some point, you accept sparking new flames. I’m all for practical jokes, but sending anonymous smoke signals via texts to an ex seems unnecessary and uncomfortable, like a joke no one laughs at. Sometimes things ought to be left unsaid (and unsent) in the accelerated speed of relationships facilitated by multiple forms of direct and indirect communication, and it seems to take us all a while to finally get the message.I sometimes fantasize about what I’d say to an ex boyfriend of mine if given the chance. Something cool and caustic that causes a rush of feelings like a gust of wind unhinging a screen door and sweeping through a home, letters and magazines falling to the floor. The words would be heartfelt and appropriate, maybe even lyrical. A new website now allows people to send ex lovers/friends/anyone lovelorn messages in the form of Justin Bieber lyrics. For only a dollar, Bieber Bomb will send the person of your choice texts from an anonymous phone number for twelve hours, using only lyrics from the Biebs’ songs like “Baby,” “What Do You Mean?” and “As Long as You Love Me.” Anyone wishing to see the person’s response (uh, everyone) can pay two dollars for the “Sneak Attack” option that will send you the text conversation. The creator’s of Bieber Bomb already have other lyric-fueled text assaults in development. The Adele Attack promises to be the most soul-crushing (and catchy) in the arsenal. “I’ve forgotten how it felt before the world fell at our feet” is certain to make even the most callous of exes shudder. Whether you’re trying to rekindle the ashes of a former flame, or piss off your friends, it’s an interesting form of communication. Sam Slaughter takes on the myriad methods of communication on our phones this week in an article for the New York Times, and notices how we’ve developed ways to have one-on-one conversations on very public platforms. It’s not uncommon to have conversations in the comment section of a celebrity’s Instagram feed, for example. In many ways, doing so seems safe. We tag a lover in a photo on Facebook or Instagram to relay sentimentality instead of saying it outright. When scorned, we use the lyrics to pop songs to anonymously send our lovers instead of using our actual words. I’m not sure if we’ve been conditioned to conceal thoughts that don’t align with the brands we’ve so meticulously curated for ourselves online, or if we’ve subscribed so strictly to the idea that the person who cares the least has the upper hand that we actually believe it -- almost. But if we’re going out of our way to tag people in photos on arbitrary Instagram accounts, or paying to have lyrics anonymously sent to someone, there’s clearly some level (a great deal, I’d argue) of care still lingering. For as many direct forms of contact that are available at the click of a screen or tap of an iPhone, we seem to go out of our way to make round about implications to people at the forefront of our thoughts. I had an ex subtweet me for a few weeks before finally (at last!) unfollowing me on Twitter. We had the breakup conversation many times before, but it didn’t feel finalized until we were officially removed from each other’s newsfeeds. It was an interesting experience because I registered not only the loss of the relationship, but also how our words -- the ones I had valued so dearly -- were rendered meaningless. The tear-stained conversations over Facetime didn’t mean anything, but the passive aggressive tweets sure as hell did. Bits of our relationship were scattered like ashes for public display on songs and social media, and it took me a while to realize we wouldn’t rise together again like a phoenix. At some point, you accept sparking new flames. I’m all for practical jokes, but sending anonymous smoke signals via texts to an ex seems unnecessary and uncomfortable, like a joke no one laughs at. Sometimes things ought to be left unsaid (and unsent) in the accelerated speed of relationships facilitated by multiple forms of direct and indirect communication, and it seems to take us all a while to finally get the message.I sometimes fantasize about what I’d say to an ex boyfriend of mine if given the chance. Something cool and caustic that causes a rush of feelings like a gust of wind unhinging a screen door and sweeping through a home, letters and magazines falling to the floor. The words would be heartfelt and appropriate, maybe even lyrical. A new website now allows people to send ex lovers/friends/anyone lovelorn messages in the form of Justin Bieber lyrics. For only a dollar, Bieber Bomb will send the person of your choice texts from an anonymous phone number for twelve hours, using only lyrics from the Biebs’ songs like “Baby,” “What Do You Mean?” and “As Long as You Love Me.” Anyone wishing to see the person’s response (uh, everyone) can pay two dollars for the “Sneak Attack” option that will send you the text conversation. The creator’s of Bieber Bomb already have other lyric-fueled text assaults in development. The Adele Attack promises to be the most soul-crushing (and catchy) in the arsenal. “I’ve forgotten how it felt before the world fell at our feet” is certain to make even the most callous of exes shudder. Whether you’re trying to rekindle the ashes of a former flame, or piss off your friends, it’s an interesting form of communication. Sam Slaughter takes on the myriad methods of communication on our phones this week in an article for the New York Times, and notices how we’ve developed ways to have one-on-one conversations on very public platforms. It’s not uncommon to have conversations in the comment section of a celebrity’s Instagram feed, for example. In many ways, doing so seems safe. We tag a lover in a photo on Facebook or Instagram to relay sentimentality instead of saying it outright. When scorned, we use the lyrics to pop songs to anonymously send our lovers instead of using our actual words. I’m not sure if we’ve been conditioned to conceal thoughts that don’t align with the brands we’ve so meticulously curated for ourselves online, or if we’ve subscribed so strictly to the idea that the person who cares the least has the upper hand that we actually believe it -- almost. But if we’re going out of our way to tag people in photos on arbitrary Instagram accounts, or paying to have lyrics anonymously sent to someone, there’s clearly some level (a great deal, I’d argue) of care still lingering. For as many direct forms of contact that are available at the click of a screen or tap of an iPhone, we seem to go out of our way to make round about implications to people at the forefront of our thoughts. I had an ex subtweet me for a few weeks before finally (at last!) unfollowing me on Twitter. We had the breakup conversation many times before, but it didn’t feel finalized until we were officially removed from each other’s newsfeeds. It was an interesting experience because I registered not only the loss of the relationship, but also how our words -- the ones I had valued so dearly -- were rendered meaningless. The tear-stained conversations over Facetime didn’t mean anything, but the passive aggressive tweets sure as hell did. Bits of our relationship were scattered like ashes for public display on songs and social media, and it took me a while to realize we wouldn’t rise together again like a phoenix. At some point, you accept sparking new flames. I’m all for practical jokes, but sending anonymous smoke signals via texts to an ex seems unnecessary and uncomfortable, like a joke no one laughs at. Sometimes things ought to be left unsaid (and unsent) in the accelerated speed of relationships facilitated by multiple forms of direct and indirect communication, and it seems to take us all a while to finally get the message.
Rahm Emanuel’s catastrophic downfall: Why it should be a much bigger deal for Hillary Clinton
Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is in big trouble. In the wake of the scandal surrounding his police department's execution of teenager Laquan McDonald, local columnists have declared that he has permanently lost his grip on the city. More than half of Chicago residents in a recent poll said he should resign. His teary apology for McDonald's killing got him nowhere.
The mayor of the third-biggest city in America—whose stewardship of Chicago was dire enough before you even got to the police—is on the ropes. He is a former right-hand man to both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, whose wife, you may have heard, is now running for president.
Why isn't any of this a bigger deal in the 2016 presidential race?
Hillary Clinton—who goes a long way back with Emanuel— has gotten away with saying very little about the crisis unfolding in Chicago. She backed the Justice Department investigation into the Chicago Police Department and said that she continued to have confidence in Emanuel. And that's about it.
NBC News speculated on Friday that Clinton's dominance in the polls is shielding her from having to more fully respond to Emanuel's misdeeds and preventing the Chicago crisis from becoming a more central issue in the campaign. If that is so, then it's a disgrace. Clinton should be made to face the Emanuel issue over and over again–both because of her history with Emanuel and because of the despicable nature of what has happened on his watch. So should every other 2016 candidate.
Let's just remind ourselves of why Emanuel is in such a bind. There is ample evidence that, at the very least, people close to him were aware just two months after McDonald's death that a video of his killing existed. The video thoroughly contradicted the initial lies that the CPD told about McDonald's death. The Chicago government then kept the video under lock and key for over a year, crucially allowing Emanuel to win re-election in the interval. After evidence of the video surfaced, made every effort to suppress it—including tacking a clause prohibiting its release into a settlement with the McDonald family—only releasing it after an independent journalist successfully sued the city to get it unsealed.
And it's not just the McDonald scandal. There is also the issue of Homan Square, the secret facility that the CPD has used to literally disappear thousands of people, almost all of them stuffed into a virtual domestic black site without charge or access to an attorney. The overwhelming majority of those detained are black. Some detainees have described horrific sexual abuse at police hands. One lawyer who knows what goes on at Homan Square told Mother Jones that the conditions there meet the international standard for torture. Faced with this, Emanuel replied that Homan Square was "by the books."
So here we have a city whose police department lied about and then tried to cover up the brutal killing of a young black man. The same department is also running its own personal gulag. Oh, and it's also the same department that has cost Chicago nearly $500 million in misconduct settlements since just 2004, and that has a lengthy history of torture and other abuse. It is now under federal investigation. By any measure, what is happening in Chicago, and to Rahm Emanuel, is a terrible scandal that cuts to the heart of the debate we've been having about how the police operate in this country and whether black lives are treated with any value.
This debate has become a major theme of the Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton has tried to make it a major theme of her campaign. Whether she is doing that successfully is up for debate, but it would be a huge mistake if she was allowed to sidestep the injustice taking place in such a key Democratic stronghold as Chicago, especially when she has such an extensive political history with the man overseeing the mess there. One of the most important places in the United States has an institutionally bigoted police force. What does Clinton think of that? What does it mean for her plans to tackle these problems? If someone other than Emanuel was running Chicago, would she be supporting that person?
People need to demand that Clinton truly grapple with the details of the scandal, and to ask her if her support of Emanuel really can be squared with her purportedly aggressive stance on criminal justice issues. She should be questioned about why she still has confidence in Emanuel when the majority of his constituents don't. If she is really going to put her loyalty to Emanuel above what is so clearly a cesspool of corruption and racism, then she should be made to fully articulate that stance. Bernie Sanders has been tougher on the Emanuel question, but he should be held more clearly to account as well. It's easy to predict what Republicans will say about all of this, but they also need to be put on the record.
Ross Douthat should look in the mirror: He’s got medieval beliefs, but has the gall to lecture Muslims on how to modernize
Last week, Sean Hannity, in his usual brain-dead fashion, rolled out a guffaw-worthy argument: That Muslim immigrants weren't liberal enough to move to the United States. Laughable, of course, because of the hypocrisy necessary to stump for the virtue of reactionary, right-wing Christianity day in and day out, only to get fussy if someone does the same thing while using an Arabic word to describe God. Enter Ross Douthat of The New York Times. Douthat's role in the right-wing nut ecosystem is to take some of the dumber talking points and goals of the right and putting a pseudo-intellectual spin on them. This being the era of Donald Trump, he has to apply himself to the unenviable task of pushing the idea that Hannity was stabbing at, that conservative Islam is fundamentally nasty and irredeemable, while simultaneously maintaining the belief that fundamentalist Christianity is a benign force of good. Douthat uses a few more five dollar words, but his basic strategy is the same as Hannity's: Simply pretend that conservative Christianity means no harm to anyone, a task that requires not only ignoring the facts but ignoring his own opinions. The easiest way to do this, of course, is to launch strawman arguments against liberals, preferably in the most sneering way possible. Liberals "assume that all religious ideas are arbitrary" he argues. "Instead of a life-changing, obedience-demanding revelation of the Absolute, its modernized Islam would be Unitarianism with prayer rugs and Middle Eastern kitsch – one more sigil in the COEXIST bumper sticker, one more office in the multicultural student center, one more client group in the left-wing coalition." You can really feel the hands slapping khaki-clad conservative thighs in delight. Those stickers sure are annoying! But the underlying meaning behind the weak attempt at humor is just more Douthat-esque nonsense about how depth of spiritual meaning must be inversely proportional to willingness to treat your fellow human beings with decency. You get the feeling that it's not really Islam that's he's really try to defend here against those dastardly liberals. Why else so angry at Unitarians, unless their existence offends you by suggesting that one does not need to hate women and fear modernity in order to be religious? Indeed, he gets more explicit about using his Islam cloak in order to complain about those meanie liberals and their anti-theocratic mission. "Devout Muslims watching current Western debates, for instance, might notice that some of the same cosmopolitan liberals who think of themselves as Benevolent Foes of Islamophobia are also convinced that many conservative Christians are dangerous crypto-theocrats whose institutions and liberties must give way whenever they conflict with liberalism’s vision of enlightenment," he smugly writes. It's a slightly more sophisticated gotcha game with the liberals than Hannity was playing, but the aim is the same: Trying to imply that liberals have some double standard wherein they believe that Christian theocracy is wrong but that Islamic theocracy is awesome. Except that Hannity casts the imaginary pro-sharia liberals are hypocrites, but Douthat instead thinks they are fools, people too stupid to understand that Islamic fundamentalism is no more benevolent than Christian fundamentalism. At this point, it would be nice if conservatives would actually start bothering to quote liberals, just once, that both oppose Christian theocratic measures like bans on abortion or gay marriage while simultaneously claiming to be cool with, say, mandating that all American women wear the hijab. You'd think, since conservatives from Hannity to Douthat seem to believe said liberals exist, they could produce at least one for evidence. Of course, Douthat is projecting here. It's not really liberals who feel some complicated sympathy for Islamic theocrats here. It's Douthat whose theocratic longings come across loud and clear, especially when he whines that conservative Christians "are wrestling with whether their own faith is compatible with the direction of modern liberalism, or whether Christianity needs to enter a kind of internal exile in the West." You'd think someone who is so fond of claiming to have found a middle path might suggest such a thing to his fellow Christians: You don't have to live in exile, but maybe you could lay off trying to force everyone else to follow your religion's illiberal dogma. But to Douthat, being unable to, say, force a stranger to have a baby against her will is the equivalent of living in exile. Minding your own business is too painful a prospect for him to bear. Which is why his condescending lecture to Muslims on how to deal with their supposed dilemma of living in the modern world is especially entertaining in the lacking self-awareness department. "In this landscape of options, the clearest model for Islam’s transition to modernity might lie in American evangelicalism," he writes, no doubt while stroking his own beard with pleasure at his supposed insight into this. But, he warns, "it has to set aside the sword." Cue scary music. Take a moment to think about the American evangelical model actually means: Organize in explicit opposition to a secular government. Choose leaders who openly promise to build their policy around your religious beliefs, with an eye towards forcing the non-believers to follow your religious rules, even as you pretend to be magnanimous by not forcing them to convert all the way. Use government resources like schools to confuse the public about the difference between facts and your religious dogma. Focus your efforts especially on oppressing women and LGBT people, making sure the reach of your religious power goes all the way into the bedroom, interfering with people's most personal choices about how to live. When you don't get your way through above-the-board methods, turn to unsavory tactics like stalking, harassment, and in some cases, violence to get your way. Shamelessly lie about your secular opponents. Oh yeah, and pick up the sword yourself by pushing a "clash of civilizations" narrative wherein you angle for a religion-inflected war between your nation and one dominated by a faith that you disapprove of. How, exactly, is that modern? Sure, they haven't gotten as far as the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but that's likely due more to external checks on their power than because of a willing embrace of modernity. A true compromise modernity wouldn't look anything like this, but would, in fact, look closer to the way that most conservative Muslims in the U.S. live: By following their faith in private but not trying to impose it on others. Perhaps Douthat should lay off the lectures and instead listen to people who are already handling this conflict far better than he ever could.
