Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 928
December 9, 2015
The blinding irrelevance of Time magazine: Why Angela Merkel as “Person of the Year” just proves its love affair with power
Angela Merkel didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015, but Time magazine has ensured that the Chancellor of Germany isn't going to end the year empty-handed. Merkel has been named the 2015 Person of the Year—the annual honorific that, for whatever reason, still seems to matter a great deal. (There's a whole other piece to be written about why we're even that interested in what Time thinks about the state of the planet in 2015, but that's for another day.)
Editor Nancy Gibbs wrote that Merkel's acceptance of the refugees who are still pouring into Germany was the main reason that she had been selected. She hailed Merkel "for asking more of her country than most politicians would dare, for standing firm against tyranny as well as expedience and for providing steadfast moral leadership in a world where it is in short supply." An accompanying article expanded on this point.
Merkel's insistence that refugees should be allowed into Germany—one she has faced no small amount of political pressure for—is certainly laudable, especially as the U.S. is dealing with a groundswell of racist hysteria around refugees who haven't even come here. It's also, of course, good that Time has named a woman as its Person of the Year for the first time—and this is really true–since 1986. These things are important. Yet the choice reflects both Time's unerring commitment to worshiping the powerful and to choosing the blandly inspiring over the truly interesting.
You don't have to take my word on the first point. Time's Radhika Jones, in explaining why so few women have been named "Person of the Year," wrote that "the label of Person of the Year tends to favor people with institutional power." At least Time is being upfront about its priorities there.
(And, not for nothing, but that closeness to power is reflected in the magazine's endorsement of the way Merkel dealt with the Greek euro crisis this year. There are those who would be rather less enthusiastic about the unyielding manner in which Merkel led Europe's highly anti-democratic response to the wishes of the elected Syriza government in Greece. Time, though, loves what it calls her "stern mien" and her toughness with "sunny Mediterranean nations that spent money they did not have.")
The second point, though, is equally important in sussing out why Time makes the choices it does. Although the magazine always insists that the recipient is the person who mattered most for good or for ill, it has a long history of avoiding potentially divisive figures. The past few years offer ample proof of this: Pope Francis was chosen over Edward Snowden in 2013, and "Ebola fighters" over Ferguson protesters and Vladimir Putin in 2014. This year, Merkel beat out ISIS chief Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and the Black Lives Matter protesters, among others. Both made an arguably bigger impact on America and the world than Merkel did, but both would surely have been more controversial picks.
Even if you think that Time should aim for the middle instead of taking a sharper stand, though, there's a glaring choice staring the magazine in the face that it failed to make. Instead of highlighting the benign white leader who welcomed the huddled masses into her country, why not choose the refugees themselves? These are ordinary people who have braved horror at home and abroad; who have been through hell and back; who have faced down tyrants and demagogues in both the Middle East and in Europe and, by proxy, in the United States; who have shaped the presidential race and global politics; and who, through it all, have insisted, by their actions, that they have a right to live in peace and that they are worthy of international protection. Now that would have been something even the coldest of cynics would find it possible to get behind.
Patricia Arquette urges action on the gender pay gap with an inclusive call-to-arms: “It was never about only actresses or white women to me”
Unless you've lived under a rock in the past months, you have no reason to not know about Patricia Arquette's passionate speech on the wage gap at the Oscars this year. She received an Oscar for her performance in "Boyhood" and used the time for her thank you speech to demand wage equality for women. However, the content of her speech, mixed in with some of her comments backstage received praise and backlash, as she failed to include all women in her crusade. Her lack of talking about intersectional feminism brought criticism and commentary, and Patricia responds in a new guest column at the Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood actress and Oscar winner summarizes how she's absorbed more knowledge on the subject and has evolved: "Since the speech, I have learned a lot more about the feminist movement and how women of color have been left out of the process. I understand that more now. I am really sad that I may have added to their feeling of being excluded." Arquette uses the column to apologize for her mistakes as she advocates for women rights, and clears the air with statements she things may have been misunderstood. "I blame myself for my stupid wording that night when I was calling for male activists to have our backs and remember women, to support the women's movement and to include women in the conversation. I was talking about the really devastating consequences of the women's movement stalling out. It was my own lack of clarity backstage that made some women feel left out or slighted. This of all things makes me sad, because they are my heroes." Arquette continues: "When I brought it up, I was talking about all women. I meant Native American women, Asian women, Latino women, African-American women, trans women, lesbian women, white women." Arquette backs up her claims with statistics ("Wage disparity costs the average woman $400,000 and robs women with higher education of $2 million over their lifetime"), and states, "It was never about only actresses or white women to me." And unlike her speech at the Oscars, Arquette acknowledges members of the LGBT community in the column, saying, "We also need to hear more about our lesbian sisters and our trans sisters. Our trans sisters are the most likely women to be living in deep poverty, with 15 percent of them making less than $10,000 a year. That's crazy and needs to change." And Lena Dunham, long time advocate for woman's rights and one of Hollywood Reporter's Power Top 100 for the second consecutive year, appreciated the conversation on women's rights in her speech at the Hollywood Reporter's 2015 Women in Entertainment Breakfast. The 29 year old "Girls" creator and star says, "I want to thank all of you for brilliantly and stylishly cleaning up the mess that Hollywood has made of equality and diversity." Dunham continues to talk about this "mess" by referring to her mentor, the late Nora Ephron. Ephron's letter with a list of things she wouldn't miss when she died included talking about women in film. Dunham says she, too, is sick of talking about it. But it has to be done, according to Ephron and Dunham. Dunham says that the conversation on gender equality has reached a "fever pitch," in part due to Patricia Arquette's outspoken speech, and consequent activism on the subject like Jennifer Lawrence's viral essay Dunham published in her Lenny newsletter this fall. But some could say that Arquette is a single voice, as are Dunham and Lawrence and the other women in Hollywood calling for change. And Dunham has a solution for this. She pushes her peers and mentors to work together instead. "I am advocating for all of us here to make it our mission to use our resources and turn this around as a team … It’s the right thing to do and it’s the only thing to do."
Abigail Fisher deserves an ‘F’ for her race-baiting Supreme Court case aimed at boosting subpar white students
Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what is easily the most baffling case it's going to hear this session, yet another attack on affirmative action policies at state universities, in this case the University of Texas at Austin. If ever there was a case that has no business in front of the high court, it is this one. The suit is a nuisance suit, it's poorly argued, it's disingenuous, it's been heard before and, to make everything even more bizarre, the plaintiff's claim to injury is demonstrably untrue. This is a case that should have been laughed out of court years ago, but instead, this is the second time — second time! — it's being presented in front of the Supreme Court. At stake is the claim made by Abigail Fisher, now 25, who hails from a wealthy suburb of Houston called Sugar Land, that she was deprived of her rightful admission at UT Austin because, in her view, some person of color who didn't deserve it stole it from her. Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That's because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher's GPA and SAT scores weren't high enough, and she didn't have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time: 
Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what is easily the most baffling case it's going to hear this session, yet another attack on affirmative action policies at state universities, in this case the University of Texas at Austin. If ever there was a case that has no business in front of the high court, it is this one. The suit is a nuisance suit, it's poorly argued, it's disingenuous, it's been heard before and, to make everything even more bizarre, the plaintiff's claim to injury is demonstrably untrue. This is a case that should have been laughed out of court years ago, but instead, this is the second time — second time! — it's being presented in front of the Supreme Court. At stake is the claim made by Abigail Fisher, now 25, who hails from a wealthy suburb of Houston called Sugar Land, that she was deprived of her rightful admission at UT Austin because, in her view, some person of color who didn't deserve it stole it from her. Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That's because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher's GPA and SAT scores weren't high enough, and she didn't have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time:
It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white. Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's who were also denied entry into the university that year.Fisher's case only makes sense if you assume that people of color are inherently less worthy than white people. How else do you justify an argument that assumes that every white person should have been given a shot before minority students do? This assumption of the inherent superiority of white people, even above those people of color who have more appealing applications, was reflected in Antonin Scalia's remarks during today's case.
Instead of telling her where to shove it, the Supreme Court sent Fisher's case back to the appeals court. Now she and her lawyers are back again. This time, they've tweaked their argument a bit, trying to argue that diversity itself is an illegitimate goal for schools and, to add a bit of extra nastiness sauce to it, they're claiming that diversity is bad for students of color. In other words, Fisher and her lawyers are concern-trolling the Supreme Court. Most of UT Austin's admissions are on the basis of high school class standing — about 80 percent of its class in the year that Fisher applied. But the other 20 percent are determined in a holistic fashion, by looking at grades, extracurricular activities, test scores, writing samples, the usual stuff. Because of the school's commitment to diversity, race and class background is also taken into consideration. Someone who shows potential but faced some obstacles gets a closer look than someone who hasn't had similar obstacles. When you read about this case, it quickly becomes self-evident why the admissions committee didn't think Fisher had some hidden potential that wasn't reflected in her grades. Fisher, however, has decided her unparalleled genius is going unnoticed because of the notorious racism against white people. But since that argument hasn't gotten her very far, her lawyer, Edward Blum, is now trying a different tactic to argue that schools should admit mediocre white people over talented students of color: His claim is that giving students of color an opportunity somehow hurts them. "Rigorous judicial review,” Blum's new petition argues, “would have revealed that UT’s ‘qualitative’ diversity interest is in fact illegitimate. It depends on the assumption that, as a group, minorities admitted through the Top Ten Percent Law are inherently limited in their ability to contribute to the university’s vision of a diverse student body, merely because many come from majority-minority communities." Translated from legalese to English: It's supposedly racist to let students of color with middling grades into UT Austin, because you're assuming they can't do better. It's a particularly rich argument, considering that Fisher is arguing that she should have been given the first shot, before any students of color, at getting in with middling grades. But the school is arguing that they should have a right to evaluate a student beyond grades, at least in the 20 percent of cases at stake here. Students who get in with less than stellar grades (most of whom are white, we must remember) usually do so by making a case that they have potential. Taking someone's racial background and the obstacles they faced from it is part of making that case. Blum's argument says more about his and Fisher's racial prejudices than it does about the school. It's they who assume that non-whites students must have been given a leg up because they couldn't hack it on their own. But when it comes to Fisher, they employ a different assumption, believing, against all evidence to the contrary, that she must be good enough to deserve a spot. There's a word for casually assuming the worst about people of color while assuming the best, even in the face of contrary evidence, of white people. Needless to say, it's not a word commonly associated with doing well by people of color. The "diversity is bad for students of color" argument is clearly disingenuous, but it's really just cover for the larger argument that Blum is making, which is that universities have no interest in having diverse student bodies. Unfortunately, this claim, even without the doing-it-for-the-black-kids justification, has a warm audience with the conservative justices. As the Wall Street Journal liveblog demonstrates, Samuel Alito was arguing from the bench that as long as you have some black students, then you don't really need to work to make sure that the student body's diversity is reflexive of the country at large. John Roberts got snotty, asking, "“What ‘unique perspective’ does a minority student bring to a physics class?” It's interesting how he assumes the purpose in having black students is not to educate those students, but only if they can bring a "unique perspective" for the benefit of white students. But of course, the purpose of universities, especially land grant colleges like UT Austin, is not just about giving white people a good college experience. It's about improving society, as a whole. And that whole includes black people, who are currently underrepresented in higher education. UT Austin found a way to balance its duty to provide education to improve lives for people, all kinds of people, with their duty to maintain a level of educational excellence. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't chuck that in favor of a system whose only purpose is to elevate white mediocre students like Abigail Fisher over promising students of color.From transcript, what Scalia said today on whether black people would be better served at "less advanced" schools pic.twitter.com/ikYGnjqM5p
— Irin Carmon (@irin) December 9, 2015
Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what is easily the most baffling case it's going to hear this session, yet another attack on affirmative action policies at state universities, in this case the University of Texas at Austin. If ever there was a case that has no business in front of the high court, it is this one. The suit is a nuisance suit, it's poorly argued, it's disingenuous, it's been heard before and, to make everything even more bizarre, the plaintiff's claim to injury is demonstrably untrue. This is a case that should have been laughed out of court years ago, but instead, this is the second time — second time! — it's being presented in front of the Supreme Court. At stake is the claim made by Abigail Fisher, now 25, who hails from a wealthy suburb of Houston called Sugar Land, that she was deprived of her rightful admission at UT Austin because, in her view, some person of color who didn't deserve it stole it from her. Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That's because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher's GPA and SAT scores weren't high enough, and she didn't have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time: It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white. Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's who were also denied entry into the university that year.Fisher's case only makes sense if you assume that people of color are inherently less worthy than white people. How else do you justify an argument that assumes that every white person should have been given a shot before minority students do? This assumption of the inherent superiority of white people, even above those people of color who have more appealing applications, was reflected in Antonin Scalia's remarks during today's case.
Instead of telling her where to shove it, the Supreme Court sent Fisher's case back to the appeals court. Now she and her lawyers are back again. This time, they've tweaked their argument a bit, trying to argue that diversity itself is an illegitimate goal for schools and, to add a bit of extra nastiness sauce to it, they're claiming that diversity is bad for students of color. In other words, Fisher and her lawyers are concern-trolling the Supreme Court. Most of UT Austin's admissions are on the basis of high school class standing — about 80 percent of its class in the year that Fisher applied. But the other 20 percent are determined in a holistic fashion, by looking at grades, extracurricular activities, test scores, writing samples, the usual stuff. Because of the school's commitment to diversity, race and class background is also taken into consideration. Someone who shows potential but faced some obstacles gets a closer look than someone who hasn't had similar obstacles. When you read about this case, it quickly becomes self-evident why the admissions committee didn't think Fisher had some hidden potential that wasn't reflected in her grades. Fisher, however, has decided her unparalleled genius is going unnoticed because of the notorious racism against white people. But since that argument hasn't gotten her very far, her lawyer, Edward Blum, is now trying a different tactic to argue that schools should admit mediocre white people over talented students of color: His claim is that giving students of color an opportunity somehow hurts them. "Rigorous judicial review,” Blum's new petition argues, “would have revealed that UT’s ‘qualitative’ diversity interest is in fact illegitimate. It depends on the assumption that, as a group, minorities admitted through the Top Ten Percent Law are inherently limited in their ability to contribute to the university’s vision of a diverse student body, merely because many come from majority-minority communities." Translated from legalese to English: It's supposedly racist to let students of color with middling grades into UT Austin, because you're assuming they can't do better. It's a particularly rich argument, considering that Fisher is arguing that she should have been given the first shot, before any students of color, at getting in with middling grades. But the school is arguing that they should have a right to evaluate a student beyond grades, at least in the 20 percent of cases at stake here. Students who get in with less than stellar grades (most of whom are white, we must remember) usually do so by making a case that they have potential. Taking someone's racial background and the obstacles they faced from it is part of making that case. Blum's argument says more about his and Fisher's racial prejudices than it does about the school. It's they who assume that non-whites students must have been given a leg up because they couldn't hack it on their own. But when it comes to Fisher, they employ a different assumption, believing, against all evidence to the contrary, that she must be good enough to deserve a spot. There's a word for casually assuming the worst about people of color while assuming the best, even in the face of contrary evidence, of white people. Needless to say, it's not a word commonly associated with doing well by people of color. The "diversity is bad for students of color" argument is clearly disingenuous, but it's really just cover for the larger argument that Blum is making, which is that universities have no interest in having diverse student bodies. Unfortunately, this claim, even without the doing-it-for-the-black-kids justification, has a warm audience with the conservative justices. As the Wall Street Journal liveblog demonstrates, Samuel Alito was arguing from the bench that as long as you have some black students, then you don't really need to work to make sure that the student body's diversity is reflexive of the country at large. John Roberts got snotty, asking, "“What ‘unique perspective’ does a minority student bring to a physics class?” It's interesting how he assumes the purpose in having black students is not to educate those students, but only if they can bring a "unique perspective" for the benefit of white students. But of course, the purpose of universities, especially land grant colleges like UT Austin, is not just about giving white people a good college experience. It's about improving society, as a whole. And that whole includes black people, who are currently underrepresented in higher education. UT Austin found a way to balance its duty to provide education to improve lives for people, all kinds of people, with their duty to maintain a level of educational excellence. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't chuck that in favor of a system whose only purpose is to elevate white mediocre students like Abigail Fisher over promising students of color.From transcript, what Scalia said today on whether black people would be better served at "less advanced" schools pic.twitter.com/ikYGnjqM5p
— Irin Carmon (@irin) December 9, 2015
S.E. Cupp and Trump spokeswoman brawl over Muslim immigration ban: “So what? They’re Muslim!”
Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN. 
Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN. Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN. Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN. Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN.
Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN. Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN. Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN. Donald Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" yesterday to insist that her candidate's plan to bar all Muslims from immigrating to the United States is "really nothing new," and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because "So what? They're Muslim!" Cupp began by noting that Trump's plan is "pretty dumb, as there's really no way to ensure that people coming to the United States are telling you the truth about their religion." Moreover, not only does it "give ISIS what it wants," it's "morally repulsive, unconstitutional, and un-American." Unless Congress "goes bananas," she added, Trump will never be able to enforce this policy, so "I think he's going to be a very disappointing president, if he ever gets elected." Pierson replied that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to immigrate to the United States, and there [are] already laws on the books giving Congress the authority to ban immigration from nations that are hostile to us." While Cupp laughed in the split-screen, Pierson continued, saying "Trump really doesn't care what ISIS thinks or wants, all he cares about is the American public." "It's not that simple," Cupp replied, "that's why so many people on both sides of the aisle have denounced this. It's not 'nothing new,' as you say, there really is something new about banning an entire religious group from the country." Pierson shot back that "never in American history have we allowed insurgents to come across these borders!" "No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp replied. "You're talking about not allowing regular Muslims." "Yes," Pierson said, "from Arab nations. But you know what? So what? They're Muslims!" "'So what?'" Cupp replied. "That's not the America we live in." Watch the entire interview below via CNN.
Sean Hannity’s searing hypocrisy: Having conservative beliefs is only OK if you’re a Christian
While many Republican politicians are trying to distance themselves from Donald Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. (or returning when they travel abroad), right wing talk show hosts are taking a different approach, by minimizing, making excuses, or arguing that Trump has a point that we should be seriously considering. On "The Sean Hannity Show" Tuesday, Hannity advanced a Trump-supportive argument that was breathtaking in its hypocrisy: That Muslims should be barred from the country unless they can prove they are liberal enough. Media Matters has the clip: 
So there is a cultural divide. If somebody from a country that practices sharia, wants to come to America, do we have a right to know and to vet whether or not they are bringing values that are contradictory to our constitutional republic? Do they want the breathe of freedom and a better life for themselves, their daughters, their family? Or do they want to bring their values with them? And how do you ascertain that? And is asking that question really so over the top? If those values are brought with them, are they going to treat American women this way, or treat women in their own families this way? Or gays and lesbians in their own family this way? Why is there such a denial about how sharia law contradicts everything that we believe in our constitutional republic?Hannity no doubt thinks this is a way to wiggle out of the unconstitutional calls for a religious test on immigrants. But of course, this is still a religious test. Hannity isn't going to support laws requiring Christians to prove their liberal bona fides in order to earn the right to live here. If we did have laws like that, of course, Hannity would have to relinquish his citizenship and hope that Saudi Arabia takes him. That's because Hannity, like nearly all conservatives these days, is a strong believer in the Christian version of "sharia law," i.e. forcing conservative religious beliefs on the non-believers by law. Hannity's theocratic yearnings are particularly strong when it comes to destroying the lives of women and LGBT people. On the topic of women's sexuality, Hannity loves to rail about how "modern feminism" is all about "abortion" and "free birth control," sounding quite a bit like some fundamentalist imams issuing dire warnings about women's liberation and promiscuity. Hannity may be pretending right now to be concerned about the wellbeing of LGBT people, but as soon as his faux concern stops being a useful shield, he has nothing but hate for queer people. He advocates for the "right" of parents to shame their gay children under the guise of teaching "values." He also hustles hard to deny transgender people the ability to use the bathroom in peace. No doubt Hannity's argument is that his support for forced childbirth, mistreatment of LGBT children, and public harassment of transgender people is OK, because it isn't as bad as fundamentalist Muslim views on these issue. "I must sound like the liberal here, because I'm one of the ones standing up for women and women's rights," he preened Tuesday during his show. This is because, as he goes on to lay out, he opposes beating women to death for having unauthorized sex. How very generous of him. Sure, he wants to make contraception harder for you to get and force you to give birth if you get pregnant, all while he sneeringly implies you're a slut on the radio, but hey, he'll allow you to live. So he's like practically a liberal, right? That's why these "gotcha" arguments that conservatives roll out about Muslims don't make a lick of sense. You're not going to find many liberals who think that anyone, Muslim or Christian, should be able to invoke religion in order to wiggle out of laws offering broad protections against domestic violence and child abuse. Hannity claims to be worried about the safety of Muslim women at the hands of their fundamentalist relatives. If so, why would you want them to continue living in countries that have fewer protections instead of moving to countries, like ours, that, at least in theory, take crimes like domestic violence more seriously? The "sharia law" hysteria on the right that Hannity is fueling here is a classic example of right-wing projection. Liberals (outside of a idiots who have a simplistic view of multiculturalism) don't think conservative hostility to women and LGBT people is only wrong if it comes from Christians but somehow ennobling if it comes from Muslims. We just simply put a value on religious freedom and believe that everyone, even creeps like Sean Hannity, should be allowed to believe their stupid, hateful beliefs are justified by God, so long as they follow the laws and don't impose their views on others. The big difference between conservative Muslims and Christians in this country is that only the latter have a massive, organized movement that is backed by an entire political party to force their theocratic views on the non-believers. I may disagree with the religious views of conservative Muslims, but by and large, they aren't trying to force me to wear a burqua or to turn the local high school graduation ceremonies into a Muslim prayer service. You can't say the same about conservative Christians like Sean Hannity, however. Hannity would force someone like me to have a baby against my will, all because his God says so. Conservative Christians are forever trying to hijack government events and services and turn them into proselytization opportunities for their religion, often by pretending their "religious freedom" is being constrained if they are asked not to use taxpayer dollars to impose their religion on others. Most kids can expect to go to their biology classroom without having Muslim-penned religious materials being passed off on them as if they were "science," but in huge swaths of America today, public school science classes are being used to pass off Christian theology under the guise of "teaching the controversy." Similarly, kids in health classes in America don't have to worry very much about having Islam-constructed views of human sexuality taught in lieu of evidence-based sex ed, but substituting Christian ideology for real sex ed is the norm in this country these days, not the exception. Liberals understand that the price you pay for religious freedom is some people adopt views that you disagree with, whether they call those views "Muslim" or "Christian." The problems really begin when you try to impose those views on others by force, and in that department, Muslims have a long way to go in the U.S. before they can even begin to catch up to Christians.
December 8, 2015
Get ready to argue: This optical test is our new “the dress,” but for politics
Dear Reader, Let’s play a game. Look at the image below, and think about what you see. From your response, I can probably guess your political leanings. Want to play? Okay, let’s go.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.Dear Reader, Let’s play a game. Look at the image below, and think about what you see. From your response, I can probably guess your political leanings. Want to play? Okay, let’s go.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.Dear Reader, Let’s play a game. Look at the image below, and think about what you see. From your response, I can probably guess your political leanings. Want to play? Okay, let’s go.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.Dear Reader, Let’s play a game. Look at the image below, and think about what you see. From your response, I can probably guess your political leanings. Want to play? Okay, let’s go.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.Dear Reader, Let’s play a game. Look at the image below, and think about what you see. From your response, I can probably guess your political leanings. Want to play? Okay, let’s go.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.Dear Reader, Let’s play a game. Look at the image below, and think about what you see. From your response, I can probably guess your political leanings. Want to play? Okay, let’s go.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.Dear Reader, Let’s play a game. Look at the image below, and think about what you see. From your response, I can probably guess your political leanings. Want to play? Okay, let’s go.
If you see a circle, chances are you’re liberal. That is, you tend to support the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and aid for the homeless. Don’t see a circle? You’re probably more likely to be conservative in regard to politics. Likely, you’re interested in protecting the rights of business owners, reducing or eliminating drug use, and have negative views on immigration issues. Ring true? As much as I wish I could, I can’t read minds. A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that a person’s political leanings can be gauged based on the results of a shape personality test. The study was led by Dr. Ben Ambridge from the University of Liverpool, and researchers found that participants who are tolerant of deviants from the norm when looking at shapes like the above circle, or others such as triangles or squares, tend to be more tolerant of marginalized (or deviant) subgroups of society. Not only are they more tolerant of groups that are commonly displaced or discriminated against, but more likely to want to actively help them. This led Ambridge and his team to believe that these participants’ political leanings were more liberal compared to others who had more rigid criteria for determining the shapes. Those who did not find the shape to be close enough to a circle, unforgiving of its asymmetry, tended to have more conservative political views. So is this the new blue/black or white/gold dress debate? Maybe. “The dress” as it came to be called, sparked many debates on the internet and bars around the country in February, with adamant defenders on each side. The way we interpret color and experiences from other senses is subjective based on our biology. In order to see color, our neurons interact with wavelengths acquired from rods and cones in our eyes, which are what enable us to see color. We see color in certain hues based on the wavelength’s molecular structure interacting with light. So when you see a red dress, the dress isn’t actually red (stay with me on this one). Your eye sees the dress, reflects the wavelength of light it receives, and sends a signal to your brain that corresponds with how we interpret the color “red.” The interaction between the wavelengths and light are what cause our color perception experiences. The shape personality test works in a different way. The circle was manipulated to be asymmetrical, and yet some participants reported it as more-or-less circular in shape. This response corresponded to personalities that were more likely to take liberal political views. This difference in sensitivity is a different neurological process than “the dress” debate, but can still reveal much about our personalities and neurocognitive decision making processes. Circle, not a circle; black/blue or white/gold -- who’s to say? One thing we do know, is things are never really black or white.
Lane Bryant’s epic Twitter chat fail: “Their brand is to make fat people feel like they are our only choice”
By now, it would seem that Twitter chats are most assuredly not the place any public figure or company should go unless they are prepared for an unrelenting onslaught of challenging and/or ridiculous questions. Here’s a small sampling of notorious recent Twitter chat fails: Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, E.L. James, and Dr. Oz. By its very nature, a hashtag is open to anyone who wants to use it, whether to ask a genuine question, to critique or to troll. Yet plus size fashion retailer Lane Bryant, already under fire in September for their #PlusIsEqual campaign, decided to wade into the fray. In partnership with the website Refinery29 (where they are an advertiser), they held a Twitter chat today hosted by Refinery29 contributor Liz Black using the hasthag #AskLaneBryant. In Refinery29’s announcement about the event, they wrote, “Whatever your opinion may be, now’s the chance to make your point.” Even before the official 1 p.m. EST start time of the chat, users were already using the hashtag to critique the company’s policies on the models it uses in its ads and the clothes it sells in its stores. Their pointed questions included: https://twitter.com/femmina/status/67... http://twitter.com/melhartsell/status... https://twitter.com/femmina/status/67... https://twitter.com/jdhowa2/status/67... https://twitter.com/FATshionableDoc/s... Jessica Andersen and Ashley Simon, co-founders of body positive online community My Body Does, told Salon in a joint email interview, “We were really excited to see how body positive and fat acceptance folks on Twitter were asking the hard questions during this conversation, but then we're a little disappointed that Lane Bryant didn't seem to address any of them directly. [We] want to see Lane Bryant hire one of these people who is asking them the hard questions, asking why, despite their #plusisequal campaign, they continue to position thinness over fatness in their corporate language.” Amanda Levitt, a writer who blogs at her website Fat Body Politics, was critical of Lane Bryant during the chat, Tweeting, among other statements, “Their brand is to make fat people feel like they are our only choice. That we don't deserve anything better. #AskLaneBryant.” Levitt told Salon, “Their Plus is Equal campaign has watered down the intent of the fat positivity as a movement for human rights by focusing on a very specific form of embodiment that doesn't represent fat people as a whole while trying to sell products. This has reflected a recent push to have a smaller selection of clothing sizes that are more expensive and are far more inaccessible to their customer base." Lane Bryant clearly wants to be seen as more than just a store where curvy, plus size and fat women can shop. Their Facebook page (as well as a Twitter post) currently hosts 25 photos of women wearing t-shirts bearing another of their hashtags: #I’mNoAngel along with the caption, “A snap. A share. A movement. It all starts with you (and your #ImNoAngel pics).” By seeming to remove their status as a store from the equation and putting forth the notion that by basically advertising Lane Bryant’s wares these women are part of a “movement,” the shop veers into dangerous territory. There’s nothing wrong with selling clothes to plus size women, or to do so with a body positive spin, but Lane Bryant should not confuse itself with a grassroots movement. Chenese Lewis, host of The Chenese Lewis Show, which bills itself as “#1 podcast for plus size women,” interacted with Lane Bryant during the Twitter chat, but told Salon she believes the Twitter chat was more publicity stunt than genuine quest to learn more about Lane Bryant’s customer base. “Lane Bryant has a big budget; they have blogger conferences where they get feedback from bloggers. They have more than enough resources to get all the feedback that they need,” Lewis told Salon. One of the common critiques that appeared during the Twitter chat was a request for Lane Bryant to use models size 22 or above. Lewis echoed that request. “As someone that’s a size 22, I would love to see models that look like me, not only with size, [but also] with diversity, with more models of color. I would like to see more diversity consistently, not one thing to prove you did it.” Yet Lewis was willing to cut Lane Bryant a break. Of some of the critiques of Lane Bryant’s clothing offerings that cropped up during the chat, Lewis said, “The plus community online is more trendy and fashion forward. Everybody online doesn’t represent everybody in the whole United States of America. There are people who shop at Lane Bryant who don’t even know what Twitter is, I’m sure.” Lewis doesn’t believe a Twitter chat is the best forum for a company like Lane Bryant to garner feedback “because people are so mean and negative on social media. Had this been an open forum or panel where you could see each other face to face, half of those comments wouldn’t have been said.” To their credit, Lane Bryant responded to many Tweeters, even the critical ones, like fashion blogger Kristine of TrendyCurvy.com, who wrote, “I think the prob is @lanebryant does JUST enough to pacify but does not push the envelope as a legacy plus size brand should.” While their Twitter chat could have gone worse, it doesn’t seem to have advanced the conversation around size diversity in fashion, other than to allow people an outlet to very publicly vent about what they find wrong with Lane Bryant. It seems doubtful that that will truly benefit the company unless, as Lewis noted in our conversation, they’re of the "all publicity is good publicity" school. Lane Bryant can take the core complaints they received today and, rather than offer a splashy social media message, use those for further research and development. We do live in a 24/7 media culture, and the transparency of social media can seem alluring. But for any potentially polarizing topic (read: all topics), Twitter chats like this are more likely to devolve into a humorous spectacle than effect any real change.
Donald Trump’s no leader — he’s just the voice that the ugliest Americans have been dying for
Monday night, Arianna Huffington caved and wrote an open letter, explaining that The Huffington Post would stop covering the Donald Trump campaign in the entertainment section, moving coverage to where it belongs: the politics section. The move was long overdue. Putting Trump in the entertainment section may have been a funny stunt, but it had some rather disturbing implications about the role of journalism in the political process. It's one thing for journalistic enterprises to share opinion and data that helps voters make better informed choices, but it's another thing entirely for journalists to appoint themselves gatekeepers. It's not just undemocratic, but, as the Trump campaign shows, it doesn't work. That's because The Huffington Post, and many other journalistic outlets, continue to make a category error when it comes to Trump, assuming that the main reason all this is happening is Trump himself. The assumption is that he's somehow an idiot savant of American politics, the man who cracked the code, broke all the rules and is rallying voters around his cult of personality. That Trump is a fascist pied piper, playing a beguiling racist song on his flute and leading huge numbers of Americans over the cliff. But the Trump phenomenon isn't really about him, as fascinating (and orange) of a character as he is. Trump is better understood not as the creator of a movement, but the expression of a popular will, a cipher through which huge numbers of Americans communicate what looks an awful lot like fascist sympathies. He is a symptom of a larger problem, not the cause of it. When you're working under the assumption that Trump is the creator of his own movement, it seems not unreasonable to believe that choking him off from media attention is the key to fixing this problem. While the ignore-him-and-he'll-go-away arguments have lost some of their salience in recent months, this belief, that journalists have a certain amount of power to destroy him that they are neglecting to use, continues to have a hold in some circles. After Trump on Monday called for banning Muslims from entering the U.S., there was a rush of journalists pointing out that he timed his announcement perfectly to drown out reports that that Ted Cruz was beating him in the polls in Iowa. Andrew Prokop of Vox took it a step further, arguing that the round of bipartisan condemnations "is exactly what Trump wanted" and trotting out polling evidence that shows that Trump benefits from controversy. It's true that Trump benefits from controversy — I pointed that out myself right before the San Bernardino shooting happened —but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is playing us all for fools when the media covers his ugly statements and politicians and pundits condemn them. Another, more likely explanation is that Trump tends to crest when proto-fascist sentiment rises up in the public. He may not be leading followers so much as he is riding a wave. The events after the Paris attacks suggest the wave theory over the pied piper theory. Trump spiked in the polls after that event, but the polls were all taken in the days before he rolled out his Muslim database idea and before he claimed to see Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey. All of which suggests that it's less what Trump does that matters to his supporters than what he represents. If you're feeling in a racist, hysterical mood, then you know Trump has got your back before he even opens his mouth. Trump's much-ballyhooed showmanship is just more evidence that, far from leading the troops, he's just doing their bidding. As an entertainer, he knows the secret to playing to a crowd is finding out what they want and giving it to them. One of the things that sets him apart from the other candidates is his accessibility. Most candidates have a layer of people between themselves and the public so communicating with the candidate requires setting up carefully prearranged meetings. Trump, on the other hand, is a Twitter obsessive who sits there, no doubt personally much of the time, retweeting stuff directly from his followers. He always reading his audience and tweaking his act to meet their standards. No doubt Trump released his Muslim travel ban plans in order to derail Ted Cruz's big moment. That doesn't make him some criminal mastermind, though. Timing newsworthy campaign announcements to undermine your opponent is a standard move, something nearly all politicians try to do and any campaign adviser worth his salt will tell you to do. (Remember how John McCain timed the announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate the day after Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, a move clearly designed to knock Obama's triumphant speech out of the headlines?) The timing aspect is only interesting because the campaign announcement itself is obnoxious and bigoted and is guaranteed to cause another round of wondering if Trump is officially a fascist yet. Trump did what candidates do: Feeling the race tightening up, he increased his outreach to voters by dangling a policy idea in front of them that he thinks they will like. The fact that he thinks this gambit will work is where the story is. This isn't a media story. It's a voter story. If the only thing Trump needs to rise in the polls is media attention, he could tap dance or honk someone's boob or get plastic surgery or something. He went this direction because he thinks, almost certainly for a good reason, that the voters who have been playing footsie with Cruz will be excited by this proposal and will go back to supporting Trump. In that sense, he's like every other politician out there, going where the votes are. Trump is a big, orangey object that's fun to look at, but the real story is why there is an actual proto-fascist movement forming in this country. Trump isn't the beginning of anything. He's the end result of years of conservatives growing angrier and angrier — and taking pre-Trump steps like forming the Tea Party and pushing ever more radical Republicans into Congress — about the diversification of America. And if he went away tomorrow, that anger would still be there and someone, likely Cruz, would be the next guy in line to start trying to channel it into political victory. 
Monday night, Arianna Huffington caved and wrote an open letter, explaining that The Huffington Post would stop covering the Donald Trump campaign in the entertainment section, moving coverage to where it belongs: the politics section. The move was long overdue. Putting Trump in the entertainment section may have been a funny stunt, but it had some rather disturbing implications about the role of journalism in the political process. It's one thing for journalistic enterprises to share opinion and data that helps voters make better informed choices, but it's another thing entirely for journalists to appoint themselves gatekeepers. It's not just undemocratic, but, as the Trump campaign shows, it doesn't work. That's because The Huffington Post, and many other journalistic outlets, continue to make a category error when it comes to Trump, assuming that the main reason all this is happening is Trump himself. The assumption is that he's somehow an idiot savant of American politics, the man who cracked the code, broke all the rules and is rallying voters around his cult of personality. That Trump is a fascist pied piper, playing a beguiling racist song on his flute and leading huge numbers of Americans over the cliff. But the Trump phenomenon isn't really about him, as fascinating (and orange) of a character as he is. Trump is better understood not as the creator of a movement, but the expression of a popular will, a cipher through which huge numbers of Americans communicate what looks an awful lot like fascist sympathies. He is a symptom of a larger problem, not the cause of it. When you're working under the assumption that Trump is the creator of his own movement, it seems not unreasonable to believe that choking him off from media attention is the key to fixing this problem. While the ignore-him-and-he'll-go-away arguments have lost some of their salience in recent months, this belief, that journalists have a certain amount of power to destroy him that they are neglecting to use, continues to have a hold in some circles. After Trump on Monday called for banning Muslims from entering the U.S., there was a rush of journalists pointing out that he timed his announcement perfectly to drown out reports that that Ted Cruz was beating him in the polls in Iowa. Andrew Prokop of Vox took it a step further, arguing that the round of bipartisan condemnations "is exactly what Trump wanted" and trotting out polling evidence that shows that Trump benefits from controversy. It's true that Trump benefits from controversy — I pointed that out myself right before the San Bernardino shooting happened —but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is playing us all for fools when the media covers his ugly statements and politicians and pundits condemn them. Another, more likely explanation is that Trump tends to crest when proto-fascist sentiment rises up in the public. He may not be leading followers so much as he is riding a wave. The events after the Paris attacks suggest the wave theory over the pied piper theory. Trump spiked in the polls after that event, but the polls were all taken in the days before he rolled out his Muslim database idea and before he claimed to see Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey. All of which suggests that it's less what Trump does that matters to his supporters than what he represents. If you're feeling in a racist, hysterical mood, then you know Trump has got your back before he even opens his mouth. Trump's much-ballyhooed showmanship is just more evidence that, far from leading the troops, he's just doing their bidding. As an entertainer, he knows the secret to playing to a crowd is finding out what they want and giving it to them. One of the things that sets him apart from the other candidates is his accessibility. Most candidates have a layer of people between themselves and the public so communicating with the candidate requires setting up carefully prearranged meetings. Trump, on the other hand, is a Twitter obsessive who sits there, no doubt personally much of the time, retweeting stuff directly from his followers. He always reading his audience and tweaking his act to meet their standards. No doubt Trump released his Muslim travel ban plans in order to derail Ted Cruz's big moment. That doesn't make him some criminal mastermind, though. Timing newsworthy campaign announcements to undermine your opponent is a standard move, something nearly all politicians try to do and any campaign adviser worth his salt will tell you to do. (Remember how John McCain timed the announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate the day after Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, a move clearly designed to knock Obama's triumphant speech out of the headlines?) The timing aspect is only interesting because the campaign announcement itself is obnoxious and bigoted and is guaranteed to cause another round of wondering if Trump is officially a fascist yet. Trump did what candidates do: Feeling the race tightening up, he increased his outreach to voters by dangling a policy idea in front of them that he thinks they will like. The fact that he thinks this gambit will work is where the story is. This isn't a media story. It's a voter story. If the only thing Trump needs to rise in the polls is media attention, he could tap dance or honk someone's boob or get plastic surgery or something. He went this direction because he thinks, almost certainly for a good reason, that the voters who have been playing footsie with Cruz will be excited by this proposal and will go back to supporting Trump. In that sense, he's like every other politician out there, going where the votes are. Trump is a big, orangey object that's fun to look at, but the real story is why there is an actual proto-fascist movement forming in this country. Trump isn't the beginning of anything. He's the end result of years of conservatives growing angrier and angrier — and taking pre-Trump steps like forming the Tea Party and pushing ever more radical Republicans into Congress — about the diversification of America. And if he went away tomorrow, that anger would still be there and someone, likely Cruz, would be the next guy in line to start trying to channel it into political victory.
Monday night, Arianna Huffington caved and wrote an open letter, explaining that The Huffington Post would stop covering the Donald Trump campaign in the entertainment section, moving coverage to where it belongs: the politics section. The move was long overdue. Putting Trump in the entertainment section may have been a funny stunt, but it had some rather disturbing implications about the role of journalism in the political process. It's one thing for journalistic enterprises to share opinion and data that helps voters make better informed choices, but it's another thing entirely for journalists to appoint themselves gatekeepers. It's not just undemocratic, but, as the Trump campaign shows, it doesn't work. That's because The Huffington Post, and many other journalistic outlets, continue to make a category error when it comes to Trump, assuming that the main reason all this is happening is Trump himself. The assumption is that he's somehow an idiot savant of American politics, the man who cracked the code, broke all the rules and is rallying voters around his cult of personality. That Trump is a fascist pied piper, playing a beguiling racist song on his flute and leading huge numbers of Americans over the cliff. But the Trump phenomenon isn't really about him, as fascinating (and orange) of a character as he is. Trump is better understood not as the creator of a movement, but the expression of a popular will, a cipher through which huge numbers of Americans communicate what looks an awful lot like fascist sympathies. He is a symptom of a larger problem, not the cause of it. When you're working under the assumption that Trump is the creator of his own movement, it seems not unreasonable to believe that choking him off from media attention is the key to fixing this problem. While the ignore-him-and-he'll-go-away arguments have lost some of their salience in recent months, this belief, that journalists have a certain amount of power to destroy him that they are neglecting to use, continues to have a hold in some circles. After Trump on Monday called for banning Muslims from entering the U.S., there was a rush of journalists pointing out that he timed his announcement perfectly to drown out reports that that Ted Cruz was beating him in the polls in Iowa. Andrew Prokop of Vox took it a step further, arguing that the round of bipartisan condemnations "is exactly what Trump wanted" and trotting out polling evidence that shows that Trump benefits from controversy. It's true that Trump benefits from controversy — I pointed that out myself right before the San Bernardino shooting happened —but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is playing us all for fools when the media covers his ugly statements and politicians and pundits condemn them. Another, more likely explanation is that Trump tends to crest when proto-fascist sentiment rises up in the public. He may not be leading followers so much as he is riding a wave. The events after the Paris attacks suggest the wave theory over the pied piper theory. Trump spiked in the polls after that event, but the polls were all taken in the days before he rolled out his Muslim database idea and before he claimed to see Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey. All of which suggests that it's less what Trump does that matters to his supporters than what he represents. If you're feeling in a racist, hysterical mood, then you know Trump has got your back before he even opens his mouth. Trump's much-ballyhooed showmanship is just more evidence that, far from leading the troops, he's just doing their bidding. As an entertainer, he knows the secret to playing to a crowd is finding out what they want and giving it to them. One of the things that sets him apart from the other candidates is his accessibility. Most candidates have a layer of people between themselves and the public so communicating with the candidate requires setting up carefully prearranged meetings. Trump, on the other hand, is a Twitter obsessive who sits there, no doubt personally much of the time, retweeting stuff directly from his followers. He always reading his audience and tweaking his act to meet their standards. No doubt Trump released his Muslim travel ban plans in order to derail Ted Cruz's big moment. That doesn't make him some criminal mastermind, though. Timing newsworthy campaign announcements to undermine your opponent is a standard move, something nearly all politicians try to do and any campaign adviser worth his salt will tell you to do. (Remember how John McCain timed the announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate the day after Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, a move clearly designed to knock Obama's triumphant speech out of the headlines?) The timing aspect is only interesting because the campaign announcement itself is obnoxious and bigoted and is guaranteed to cause another round of wondering if Trump is officially a fascist yet. Trump did what candidates do: Feeling the race tightening up, he increased his outreach to voters by dangling a policy idea in front of them that he thinks they will like. The fact that he thinks this gambit will work is where the story is. This isn't a media story. It's a voter story. If the only thing Trump needs to rise in the polls is media attention, he could tap dance or honk someone's boob or get plastic surgery or something. He went this direction because he thinks, almost certainly for a good reason, that the voters who have been playing footsie with Cruz will be excited by this proposal and will go back to supporting Trump. In that sense, he's like every other politician out there, going where the votes are. Trump is a big, orangey object that's fun to look at, but the real story is why there is an actual proto-fascist movement forming in this country. Trump isn't the beginning of anything. He's the end result of years of conservatives growing angrier and angrier — and taking pre-Trump steps like forming the Tea Party and pushing ever more radical Republicans into Congress — about the diversification of America. And if he went away tomorrow, that anger would still be there and someone, likely Cruz, would be the next guy in line to start trying to channel it into political victory.
Jeb Bush suggests that Trump’s campaign is a Democratic false flag conspiracy after The Donald flirts with a third party bid, again
A massive majority of Donald Trump’s supporters would abandon the Republican Party to support him should he wage a third party challenge, leading to his eventual general election loss, according to a new poll, so now rival Jeb Bush is lashing out at the Republican presidential frontrunner, propagating a right-wing conspiracy theory that Trump's campaign is part of a Democratic plot to help Hillary Clinton secure the general election. "Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy Hillary Clinton," the former Florida governor who has seen his campaign stall out tweeted on Tuesday afternoon after Trump boasted about a new USA Today/Suffolk University poll showing that 68 percent of his supporters indicated that they would rather support Trump's independent run than the eventual GOP presidential nominee if it isn't Trump. "A new poll indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent," Trump shared with this Twitter and Facebook followers on Tuesday, threatening a third party run for the gazillionth time: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Finding a bit of free time on the campaign trail where he currently polls at 3 percent in New Hampshire, Bush swiftly responded to Trump's on-again, off-again flirtation with an independent bid, floating the idea that Trump's antics may actually be part of a grand design to sabotage Republican chances at the White House: https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/67... Jeb's apparent endorsement of this Trump as a false flag conspiracy theory comes exactly a week after Glenn Beck floated a similar explanation for Trump's rise. "What are the odds that he is a spoiler?" Beck asked about Trump during his radio program last Tuesday. "What are the odds that he got into this because he's friend with the Clintons and he'll get massive payback? If Hillary Clinton gets in because he ran third party, do you know the favor they're going to owe him?" Watch Beck explain his Trump conspiracy theory, via Right Wing Watch: A massive majority of Donald Trump’s supporters would abandon the Republican Party to support him should he wage a third party challenge, leading to his eventual general election loss, according to a new poll, so now rival Jeb Bush is lashing out at the Republican presidential frontrunner, propagating a right-wing conspiracy theory that Trump's campaign is part of a Democratic plot to help Hillary Clinton secure the general election. "Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy Hillary Clinton," the former Florida governor who has seen his campaign stall out tweeted on Tuesday afternoon after Trump boasted about a new USA Today/Suffolk University poll showing that 68 percent of his supporters indicated that they would rather support Trump's independent run than the eventual GOP presidential nominee if it isn't Trump. "A new poll indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent," Trump shared with this Twitter and Facebook followers on Tuesday, threatening a third party run for the gazillionth time: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Finding a bit of free time on the campaign trail where he currently polls at 3 percent in New Hampshire, Bush swiftly responded to Trump's on-again, off-again flirtation with an independent bid, floating the idea that Trump's antics may actually be part of a grand design to sabotage Republican chances at the White House: https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/67... Jeb's apparent endorsement of this Trump as a false flag conspiracy theory comes exactly a week after Glenn Beck floated a similar explanation for Trump's rise. "What are the odds that he is a spoiler?" Beck asked about Trump during his radio program last Tuesday. "What are the odds that he got into this because he's friend with the Clintons and he'll get massive payback? If Hillary Clinton gets in because he ran third party, do you know the favor they're going to owe him?" Watch Beck explain his Trump conspiracy theory, via Right Wing Watch:
Enough with the starry-eyed “Imagine” nostalgia: Let’s remember John Lennon without the illusions
On the 35th anniversary of John Lennon’s murder in New York City, social media is raging. Pictures of Lennon in his Beatles moptop or his shaggier ‘70s state are appearing by the thousands; the lyrics from “Imagine” are easy to find on Twitter today. There are photos of Strawberry Fields in New York Central Park, and descriptions of how his shooting was reported that night. You can find plenty of reminiscences of the murder and its aftermath, like this from Time:
In the days after Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon on Dec. 8, 1980, the area around the gates of the Dakota, Lennon’s apartment building in New York City, quickly turned into a makeshift memorial. Flowers and signs from fans quoting Beatles lyrics were displayed alongside the more official remembrances, as world leaders made their way to honor an artist whose life had been ended too early.Lennon was one of the greatest musicians in the history – easily one of the most talented singers and songwriters of the rock era – and he was a key part of what may’ve been the greatest rock band ever. His loss at age 40 was devastating to a lot of us, not least because he seemed to be coming back up for air after a long period of public retreat. But that dark day looks a bit different now than it did in 1980. To understand Lennon’s death, it’s worth looking at what we’ve learned since. It makes his life and death seem a bit more complicated -- even to someone like me who spent his childhood worshiping him. First, the heart of the Beatles legacy – the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership – was not quite the happy marriage we once imagined. Or rather, it ceased to be after 1964 and maybe earlier. There’s some disagreement on just how close or far the two were on songs once considered collaborations. “The truth may never be established,” Ian MacDonald wrote in the 1997 edition of “Revolution in the Head,” one of the most detailed looks at the band’s music. “Each a self-sufficient writer, McCartney and Lennon saw their working relationship as one of mutually interested (and, at their happiest, mutually enthusiastic) business partners,” with, he writes, 1965 as a period of profound tension. In the book’s song-by-song description, MacDonald documents recording sessions to which Lennon did not even show. These days, it’s less shocking to say that there are “John songs.” But in 1980 – despite some discussion of the songwriters’ autonomy – many more informed people considered the creative partnership a fully collaborative, if tension-filled one. (The writer Joshua Wolf Shenk, by the way, argues in his book “Powers of Two” that despite some ruptures, Lennon and McCartney kept working together until the very end.) Second, Lennon was AWOL during the last few years of the band, and much of the band’s adventurous side – from the interest in contemporary art to the influence of experimental music – came from McCartney. Many of us thought of Paul as the square Beatle, and John as the arty one. But much of what’s come out since Lennon’s death shows how crucial McCartney was to pushing the band forward. John, meanwhile, was nursing a drug habit in the suburbs for some of that time. “Here, There and Everywhere,” the 2006 book by the Beatles’ recording engineer, Geoff Emerick, makes clear that McCartney kept the band together during the last few years. It was John, much more than Yoko, who introduced most of the strain. The rise of respect for George Harrison’s contributions – and his championing by musicians like Elliott Smith – have come at John’s expense as well, since Lennon played a role in keeping Harrison marginalized as a songwriter on the band’s albums. Third, Lennon could be a good friend and a lot of fun; he could also be an awful human being. It’s not polite to speak ill of the dead, but Lennon’s transgressions have been well-documented since his death, and his son Julian has been especially hard on him for effectively abandoning him when he was a child. Lennon had a painful childhood that left him deeply scarred. But it doesn’t entirely excuse the way he treated the people close to him. Lennon was, then, a very hard guy to make simple sense of, especially as more history has come out. Finally, it seemed in 1980 that Lennon’s murder by a deranged fan with a handgun would lead to a serious, sustained, and consequential movement for gun control. Those hopes – despite great effort -- don’t seem to have gone as far as a lot of us hoped. You can lament, as I do, Lennon’s sins and shortcomings -- and want to remember him without illusions – and also wish we were a bit further along on this one. Rest in peace, John Lennon.On the 35th anniversary of John Lennon’s murder in New York City, social media is raging. Pictures of Lennon in his Beatles moptop or his shaggier ‘70s state are appearing by the thousands; the lyrics from “Imagine” are easy to find on Twitter today. There are photos of Strawberry Fields in New York Central Park, and descriptions of how his shooting was reported that night. You can find plenty of reminiscences of the murder and its aftermath, like this from Time:
In the days after Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon on Dec. 8, 1980, the area around the gates of the Dakota, Lennon’s apartment building in New York City, quickly turned into a makeshift memorial. Flowers and signs from fans quoting Beatles lyrics were displayed alongside the more official remembrances, as world leaders made their way to honor an artist whose life had been ended too early.Lennon was one of the greatest musicians in the history – easily one of the most talented singers and songwriters of the rock era – and he was a key part of what may’ve been the greatest rock band ever. His loss at age 40 was devastating to a lot of us, not least because he seemed to be coming back up for air after a long period of public retreat. But that dark day looks a bit different now than it did in 1980. To understand Lennon’s death, it’s worth looking at what we’ve learned since. It makes his life and death seem a bit more complicated -- even to someone like me who spent his childhood worshiping him. First, the heart of the Beatles legacy – the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership – was not quite the happy marriage we once imagined. Or rather, it ceased to be after 1964 and maybe earlier. There’s some disagreement on just how close or far the two were on songs once considered collaborations. “The truth may never be established,” Ian MacDonald wrote in the 1997 edition of “Revolution in the Head,” one of the most detailed looks at the band’s music. “Each a self-sufficient writer, McCartney and Lennon saw their working relationship as one of mutually interested (and, at their happiest, mutually enthusiastic) business partners,” with, he writes, 1965 as a period of profound tension. In the book’s song-by-song description, MacDonald documents recording sessions to which Lennon did not even show. These days, it’s less shocking to say that there are “John songs.” But in 1980 – despite some discussion of the songwriters’ autonomy – many more informed people considered the creative partnership a fully collaborative, if tension-filled one. (The writer Joshua Wolf Shenk, by the way, argues in his book “Powers of Two” that despite some ruptures, Lennon and McCartney kept working together until the very end.) Second, Lennon was AWOL during the last few years of the band, and much of the band’s adventurous side – from the interest in contemporary art to the influence of experimental music – came from McCartney. Many of us thought of Paul as the square Beatle, and John as the arty one. But much of what’s come out since Lennon’s death shows how crucial McCartney was to pushing the band forward. John, meanwhile, was nursing a drug habit in the suburbs for some of that time. “Here, There and Everywhere,” the 2006 book by the Beatles’ recording engineer, Geoff Emerick, makes clear that McCartney kept the band together during the last few years. It was John, much more than Yoko, who introduced most of the strain. The rise of respect for George Harrison’s contributions – and his championing by musicians like Elliott Smith – have come at John’s expense as well, since Lennon played a role in keeping Harrison marginalized as a songwriter on the band’s albums. Third, Lennon could be a good friend and a lot of fun; he could also be an awful human being. It’s not polite to speak ill of the dead, but Lennon’s transgressions have been well-documented since his death, and his son Julian has been especially hard on him for effectively abandoning him when he was a child. Lennon had a painful childhood that left him deeply scarred. But it doesn’t entirely excuse the way he treated the people close to him. Lennon was, then, a very hard guy to make simple sense of, especially as more history has come out. Finally, it seemed in 1980 that Lennon’s murder by a deranged fan with a handgun would lead to a serious, sustained, and consequential movement for gun control. Those hopes – despite great effort -- don’t seem to have gone as far as a lot of us hoped. You can lament, as I do, Lennon’s sins and shortcomings -- and want to remember him without illusions – and also wish we were a bit further along on this one. Rest in peace, John Lennon.
