Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 929
December 8, 2015
Quentin Tarantino isn’t done protesting police brutality: “I want to go further with this” after “The Hateful Eight” opens
It’s been a minute since filmmaker Quentin Tarantino came to New York to participate in Rise Up October’s anti-police brutality protests, during which, you might remember, Tarantino told families of police brutality victims, “I’m on the side of the murdered.”
And since the ensuing backlash from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association—whereby cops threatened to boycott Tarantino’s forthcoming “Hateful Eight”—fizzled out of the news cycle in early November, Tarantino’s kept a pretty low profile, as far as headlines are concerned.
Tarantino explained his hiatus from activism during a press event in Beverly Hills over the weekend.
“Right now, [promoting the “Hateful Eight”] is my job,” Tarantino told The Guardian. “But when this is over, I want to go further with [anti-police brutality activism].”
Far from dejected by calls to protest his latest film, scheduled to hit theaters Christmas Day, Tarantino said he felt energized by the pushback.
“I actually felt kind of vindicated,” Tarantino said. “By them making such a big deal about it, the subject ended up being in the press and on television – and people had to start making their own minds up about it in a way that wasn’t happening before.”
Tarantino also responded to a bizarrely mafia-esque threat made by Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest police union. “The right time and place will come up and and we'll try to hurt him in the only way that seems to matter to him, and that's economically,” Pasco told The Hollywood Reporter last month.
Asked if he expected such a dramatic response from the FOP, Tarantino said Sunday, “The fact that they would overreact to such a degree, and single me out to such a degree, and then get so carried away that they literally get out over their skis, and actually, are indulging in theoretical threats of a private citizen, no, I did not expect that at all.”
(h/t NY Daily News)
It’s been a minute since filmmaker Quentin Tarantino came to New York to participate in Rise Up October’s anti-police brutality protests, during which, you might remember, Tarantino told families of police brutality victims, “I’m on the side of the murdered.”
And since the ensuing backlash from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association—whereby cops threatened to boycott Tarantino’s forthcoming “Hateful Eight”—fizzled out of the news cycle in early November, Tarantino’s kept a pretty low profile, as far as headlines are concerned.
Tarantino explained his hiatus from activism during a press event in Beverly Hills over the weekend.
“Right now, [promoting the “Hateful Eight”] is my job,” Tarantino told The Guardian. “But when this is over, I want to go further with [anti-police brutality activism].”
Far from dejected by calls to protest his latest film, scheduled to hit theaters Christmas Day, Tarantino said he felt energized by the pushback.
“I actually felt kind of vindicated,” Tarantino said. “By them making such a big deal about it, the subject ended up being in the press and on television – and people had to start making their own minds up about it in a way that wasn’t happening before.”
Tarantino also responded to a bizarrely mafia-esque threat made by Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest police union. “The right time and place will come up and and we'll try to hurt him in the only way that seems to matter to him, and that's economically,” Pasco told The Hollywood Reporter last month.
Asked if he expected such a dramatic response from the FOP, Tarantino said Sunday, “The fact that they would overreact to such a degree, and single me out to such a degree, and then get so carried away that they literally get out over their skis, and actually, are indulging in theoretical threats of a private citizen, no, I did not expect that at all.”
(h/t NY Daily News)
It’s been a minute since filmmaker Quentin Tarantino came to New York to participate in Rise Up October’s anti-police brutality protests, during which, you might remember, Tarantino told families of police brutality victims, “I’m on the side of the murdered.”
And since the ensuing backlash from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association—whereby cops threatened to boycott Tarantino’s forthcoming “Hateful Eight”—fizzled out of the news cycle in early November, Tarantino’s kept a pretty low profile, as far as headlines are concerned.
Tarantino explained his hiatus from activism during a press event in Beverly Hills over the weekend.
“Right now, [promoting the “Hateful Eight”] is my job,” Tarantino told The Guardian. “But when this is over, I want to go further with [anti-police brutality activism].”
Far from dejected by calls to protest his latest film, scheduled to hit theaters Christmas Day, Tarantino said he felt energized by the pushback.
“I actually felt kind of vindicated,” Tarantino said. “By them making such a big deal about it, the subject ended up being in the press and on television – and people had to start making their own minds up about it in a way that wasn’t happening before.”
Tarantino also responded to a bizarrely mafia-esque threat made by Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest police union. “The right time and place will come up and and we'll try to hurt him in the only way that seems to matter to him, and that's economically,” Pasco told The Hollywood Reporter last month.
Asked if he expected such a dramatic response from the FOP, Tarantino said Sunday, “The fact that they would overreact to such a degree, and single me out to such a degree, and then get so carried away that they literally get out over their skis, and actually, are indulging in theoretical threats of a private citizen, no, I did not expect that at all.”
(h/t NY Daily News)
Top New Hampshire newspaper shreds Ted Cruz’s “Texas Tough Guy act”: “Tough talk is all he has to offer”
Ted Cruz is a phony, pandering as a tough guy in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks to win votes, according to a blistering new editorial in the New Hampshire Union Leader -- New Hampshire’s largest paper. The Union Leader's editorial board, which came under a lot of heat recently for its endorsement of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, chastised Cruz on Tuesday for what it described as "a shift" in his foreign policy proposals on the campaign trail to a more "Texas Tough Guy act." The freshman Texas senator recently told a crowd in Iowa that he "will carpet bomb [ISIL] into oblivion," if elected president. In his latest campaign ad, Cruz faces the camera directly to send a message to terrorists: "If you wage jihad against us, you're signing your death warrant." Cruz "spent the past year positioning himself as a fallback option for supporters of Sen. Rand Paul," the Union Leader editors noted, before blasting Cruz for his "newfound zeal for the fight in Syria." As recently as last week, the Wall Street Journal editorial board similarly slammed Cruz's apparent reversal on foreign policy in Syria, noting that Cruz had just told Bloomberg that, “In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war.” "This is disingenuous even by Mr. Cruz’s standards," the Journal wrote, calling for more U.S. intervention in the region. But when Cruz delivered the more hawkish tone the neocons at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal demanded this week, the conservative Union Leader cried phony. The paper blasted Cruz for "ratcheting up his already overheated rhetoric," comparing the Tea Party superstar to liberals for using terms like carpet bombing "with no apparent knowledge of what it actually means." "It’s because tough talk is all he has to offer," The Union Leader concluded about Cruz's hawkish turn: 
Cruz has been transparently pandering to Donald Trump, hoping to win his supporters if and when the Trump bubble finally bursts.
[...] Cruz, who never lacks the courage to tell people exactly what they want to hear, tends to confuse volume with strength. [...] So now Cruz is beating the drums of war. Will he be as quick to change tactics should the political winds shift again?
“The Daily Show”’s desperate move: Bringing Jon Stewart back to give Trevor Noah a credibility bump
Last night on “The Daily Show,” host Trevor Noah was joined by an unexpected and—to judge by the audience’s reaction—very welcome guest: Jon Stewart. The former host stopped by “The Daily Show” to do a nearly episode-length push for a bill he’s supporting, the Zadroga Act, which would extend benefits for 9/11 first responders who have suffered health problems as a direct result of being exposed to Ground Zero. Stewart’s outrage is understandable, and the cause is in all likelihood the least controversial one currently facing Congress. But of course, politics has gotten in the way; Stewart singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as the inhumane mastermind gutting the bill for “purely political reasons.” The episode went well—skewing a little more serious than “The Daily Show” typically does, but not without payoff. I imagine most viewers left feeling they’d learned something, which is Stewart’s hallmark. Noah and Stewart have a nice onstage banter, if not a seamless one—and for once, Stewart got to play the outsize correspondent, not the straight-faced foil in the anchor’s seat. But aside from the quality of the episode, Stewart’s presence on the show is inexplicable. He is still an executive producer, true, but the comedian just signed a four-year deal with HBO to make short-form videos; what is he doing making segments back on Comedy Central? Even if HBO wasn’t ready to launch Stewart’s brand online, an op-ed by Stewart would make it to the New York Times opinion page in a heartbeat. So why return to “The Daily Show?” It’s a bit too soon for a comeback tour, just four months after his much-vaunted final episode. And how does Stewart returning reflect on the still-green new host, Trevor Noah, after a rather shaky few months in the spotlight? Whether they meant it or not, there is an awkward implied comparison that comes into play when Stewart is put next to Noah on his once-hallowed stage. No matter what you might think of Noah, it’s not entirely fair to him; Stewart is everyone’s favorite all-star, while rookie Noah just faced a bizarre staff rebellion last week. Stewart’s returning to assert himself at “The Daily Show” either makes Noah looks like he needs the injection of credibility from America’s most trusted satirist—or that “The Daily Show” is well aware that Noah isn’t up to Stewart’s standard, and is bringing the former host in to spike the ratings. It’s likely not so diabolical—after all, Noah and Stewart apparently have a good personal relationship, and it may all have been as simple as doing a favor for a friend who happens to be beloved by the audience—but it’s hard to deny that it looks weird. And the way things look have substantial significance, especially for the broadly defined, emotionally resonant position of “Daily Show” anchor. Noah’s youth and relative inexperience already made him a difficult sell to an audience who looked to Stewart as a moral authority. Now it seems that “The Daily Show” has given up on the idea of selling Noah as a similar authority—and instead will rely on occasional visits by Jon Stewart to keep audiences satisfied. That’s a sad state of affairs for Noah: After just a few months of trying to convince an audience to trust him, now “The Daily Show”’s audience can be hooked with the hope that Stewart might show up on an episode. Who knows: Maybe that will work. Filling Jon Stewart’s role is an impossible task, because Stewart succeeded based on trust and reputation. Another person, no matter how experienced or seasoned, could not replicate that familiar bond. But perhaps Stewart’s semi-presence will encourage viewers to invest in, and eventually trust Noah; as an executive producer, Stewart’s stands to profit if “The Daily Show” under Noah can become the juggernaut it was under Stewart. Whatever does happen here, it is clear that the puzzle of replacing Jon Stewart is not an easily solved one. The host, the writers, and the audience have all separately and jointly required a lot of handholding to get through this transition, and right now, there’s no guarantee that the transition is even working. 
Last night on “The Daily Show,” host Trevor Noah was joined by an unexpected and—to judge by the audience’s reaction—very welcome guest: Jon Stewart. The former host stopped by “The Daily Show” to do a nearly episode-length push for a bill he’s supporting, the Zadroga Act, which would extend benefits for 9/11 first responders who have suffered health problems as a direct result of being exposed to Ground Zero. Stewart’s outrage is understandable, and the cause is in all likelihood the least controversial one currently facing Congress. But of course, politics has gotten in the way; Stewart singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as the inhumane mastermind gutting the bill for “purely political reasons.” The episode went well—skewing a little more serious than “The Daily Show” typically does, but not without payoff. I imagine most viewers left feeling they’d learned something, which is Stewart’s hallmark. Noah and Stewart have a nice onstage banter, if not a seamless one—and for once, Stewart got to play the outsize correspondent, not the straight-faced foil in the anchor’s seat. But aside from the quality of the episode, Stewart’s presence on the show is inexplicable. He is still an executive producer, true, but the comedian just signed a four-year deal with HBO to make short-form videos; what is he doing making segments back on Comedy Central? Even if HBO wasn’t ready to launch Stewart’s brand online, an op-ed by Stewart would make it to the New York Times opinion page in a heartbeat. So why return to “The Daily Show?” It’s a bit too soon for a comeback tour, just four months after his much-vaunted final episode. And how does Stewart returning reflect on the still-green new host, Trevor Noah, after a rather shaky few months in the spotlight? Whether they meant it or not, there is an awkward implied comparison that comes into play when Stewart is put next to Noah on his once-hallowed stage. No matter what you might think of Noah, it’s not entirely fair to him; Stewart is everyone’s favorite all-star, while rookie Noah just faced a bizarre staff rebellion last week. Stewart’s returning to assert himself at “The Daily Show” either makes Noah looks like he needs the injection of credibility from America’s most trusted satirist—or that “The Daily Show” is well aware that Noah isn’t up to Stewart’s standard, and is bringing the former host in to spike the ratings. It’s likely not so diabolical—after all, Noah and Stewart apparently have a good personal relationship, and it may all have been as simple as doing a favor for a friend who happens to be beloved by the audience—but it’s hard to deny that it looks weird. And the way things look have substantial significance, especially for the broadly defined, emotionally resonant position of “Daily Show” anchor. Noah’s youth and relative inexperience already made him a difficult sell to an audience who looked to Stewart as a moral authority. Now it seems that “The Daily Show” has given up on the idea of selling Noah as a similar authority—and instead will rely on occasional visits by Jon Stewart to keep audiences satisfied. That’s a sad state of affairs for Noah: After just a few months of trying to convince an audience to trust him, now “The Daily Show”’s audience can be hooked with the hope that Stewart might show up on an episode. Who knows: Maybe that will work. Filling Jon Stewart’s role is an impossible task, because Stewart succeeded based on trust and reputation. Another person, no matter how experienced or seasoned, could not replicate that familiar bond. But perhaps Stewart’s semi-presence will encourage viewers to invest in, and eventually trust Noah; as an executive producer, Stewart’s stands to profit if “The Daily Show” under Noah can become the juggernaut it was under Stewart. Whatever does happen here, it is clear that the puzzle of replacing Jon Stewart is not an easily solved one. The host, the writers, and the audience have all separately and jointly required a lot of handholding to get through this transition, and right now, there’s no guarantee that the transition is even working.
Last night on “The Daily Show,” host Trevor Noah was joined by an unexpected and—to judge by the audience’s reaction—very welcome guest: Jon Stewart. The former host stopped by “The Daily Show” to do a nearly episode-length push for a bill he’s supporting, the Zadroga Act, which would extend benefits for 9/11 first responders who have suffered health problems as a direct result of being exposed to Ground Zero. Stewart’s outrage is understandable, and the cause is in all likelihood the least controversial one currently facing Congress. But of course, politics has gotten in the way; Stewart singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as the inhumane mastermind gutting the bill for “purely political reasons.” The episode went well—skewing a little more serious than “The Daily Show” typically does, but not without payoff. I imagine most viewers left feeling they’d learned something, which is Stewart’s hallmark. Noah and Stewart have a nice onstage banter, if not a seamless one—and for once, Stewart got to play the outsize correspondent, not the straight-faced foil in the anchor’s seat. But aside from the quality of the episode, Stewart’s presence on the show is inexplicable. He is still an executive producer, true, but the comedian just signed a four-year deal with HBO to make short-form videos; what is he doing making segments back on Comedy Central? Even if HBO wasn’t ready to launch Stewart’s brand online, an op-ed by Stewart would make it to the New York Times opinion page in a heartbeat. So why return to “The Daily Show?” It’s a bit too soon for a comeback tour, just four months after his much-vaunted final episode. And how does Stewart returning reflect on the still-green new host, Trevor Noah, after a rather shaky few months in the spotlight? Whether they meant it or not, there is an awkward implied comparison that comes into play when Stewart is put next to Noah on his once-hallowed stage. No matter what you might think of Noah, it’s not entirely fair to him; Stewart is everyone’s favorite all-star, while rookie Noah just faced a bizarre staff rebellion last week. Stewart’s returning to assert himself at “The Daily Show” either makes Noah looks like he needs the injection of credibility from America’s most trusted satirist—or that “The Daily Show” is well aware that Noah isn’t up to Stewart’s standard, and is bringing the former host in to spike the ratings. It’s likely not so diabolical—after all, Noah and Stewart apparently have a good personal relationship, and it may all have been as simple as doing a favor for a friend who happens to be beloved by the audience—but it’s hard to deny that it looks weird. And the way things look have substantial significance, especially for the broadly defined, emotionally resonant position of “Daily Show” anchor. Noah’s youth and relative inexperience already made him a difficult sell to an audience who looked to Stewart as a moral authority. Now it seems that “The Daily Show” has given up on the idea of selling Noah as a similar authority—and instead will rely on occasional visits by Jon Stewart to keep audiences satisfied. That’s a sad state of affairs for Noah: After just a few months of trying to convince an audience to trust him, now “The Daily Show”’s audience can be hooked with the hope that Stewart might show up on an episode. Who knows: Maybe that will work. Filling Jon Stewart’s role is an impossible task, because Stewart succeeded based on trust and reputation. Another person, no matter how experienced or seasoned, could not replicate that familiar bond. But perhaps Stewart’s semi-presence will encourage viewers to invest in, and eventually trust Noah; as an executive producer, Stewart’s stands to profit if “The Daily Show” under Noah can become the juggernaut it was under Stewart. Whatever does happen here, it is clear that the puzzle of replacing Jon Stewart is not an easily solved one. The host, the writers, and the audience have all separately and jointly required a lot of handholding to get through this transition, and right now, there’s no guarantee that the transition is even working.
Jon Stewart’s triumphant return: The former “Daily Show” host shames Congress with powerful message
No, you don't need to adjust your television, a bearded Jon Stewart has not taken back "The Daily Show," but he did join Trevor Noah on Monday evening to discuss something he's been a huge advocate about. “I can't believe it! This is awesome!” new host Trevor Noah exclaimed. “Oh, wait, wait, wait, shit, are you here to take the show back? I heard about this in American TV,” referring, of course, to the clusterfuck that was the "Tonight Show." But, no, it was about something more important. “I have this issue I care about very deeply and I was wondering, I want to get attention paid to it, but I was realizing I don't have a show, and nobody gives a shit anymore," Stewart said honestly. "So I thought, you have a show, and maybe I could come and…" he trailed off flexing his puppy-dog eyebrows. Last week, Stewart was on Capitol Hill irate because Congress never extended the post 9/11 benefits. In fact, there is still no permanent law to help the more than 33,000 people who are still getting 9/11 related medical care. Oddly enough, most members of the House and Senate are signed on to the bill, yet the bill hasn't been passed by either chamber of Congress. “Of course there was no reason not to renew it permanently, but they did not renew it anyway!” Stewart said of what is called the Zadroga Act. “It expired in September. Soon to be out of money, these first responders, many sick with cancers and pulmonary disease, had to travel at their expense to Washington, D.C., hundreds of times to plead for our government to do the right thing.” “The only conclusion that I can draw," he added, "is that the people of Congress are not as good a people as the people who are first responders." They ran a video of Stewart's work in The Hill meeting with officials or staff. "These guys are all dying," Stewart said to Rob Portman’s communications director. "So we would like to stop that." Later he ran into Portman and shamed him and other members who haven't done the right thing. Ultimately, it worked so Stewart concluded that shame might actually be effective. But it's what he does to Mitch McConnell that you're really going to want to watch. Stewart even chokes back his turtle impression before saying that last week the first responders were told the Zadroga Act would be included in the transportation bill passed last week. But it was Mitch McConnell who pulled it out. "Mitch McConnell doesn't give a shit about anything but politics," Stewart ultimately said. Because of this, Stewart is launching the hashtag #WorstResponders and begging people to tweet to McConnell and members of Congress. Stewart then invited the panel he had 5 and a half years ago back on the show. Only, 75 percent of the panel couldn't appear. You're going to want to see this: Part 1: No, you don't need to adjust your television, a bearded Jon Stewart has not taken back "The Daily Show," but he did join Trevor Noah on Monday evening to discuss something he's been a huge advocate about. “I can't believe it! This is awesome!” new host Trevor Noah exclaimed. “Oh, wait, wait, wait, shit, are you here to take the show back? I heard about this in American TV,” referring, of course, to the clusterfuck that was the "Tonight Show." But, no, it was about something more important. “I have this issue I care about very deeply and I was wondering, I want to get attention paid to it, but I was realizing I don't have a show, and nobody gives a shit anymore," Stewart said honestly. "So I thought, you have a show, and maybe I could come and…" he trailed off flexing his puppy-dog eyebrows. Last week, Stewart was on Capitol Hill irate because Congress never extended the post 9/11 benefits. In fact, there is still no permanent law to help the more than 33,000 people who are still getting 9/11 related medical care. Oddly enough, most members of the House and Senate are signed on to the bill, yet the bill hasn't been passed by either chamber of Congress. “Of course there was no reason not to renew it permanently, but they did not renew it anyway!” Stewart said of what is called the Zadroga Act. “It expired in September. Soon to be out of money, these first responders, many sick with cancers and pulmonary disease, had to travel at their expense to Washington, D.C., hundreds of times to plead for our government to do the right thing.” “The only conclusion that I can draw," he added, "is that the people of Congress are not as good a people as the people who are first responders." They ran a video of Stewart's work in The Hill meeting with officials or staff. "These guys are all dying," Stewart said to Rob Portman’s communications director. "So we would like to stop that." Later he ran into Portman and shamed him and other members who haven't done the right thing. Ultimately, it worked so Stewart concluded that shame might actually be effective. But it's what he does to Mitch McConnell that you're really going to want to watch. Stewart even chokes back his turtle impression before saying that last week the first responders were told the Zadroga Act would be included in the transportation bill passed last week. But it was Mitch McConnell who pulled it out. "Mitch McConnell doesn't give a shit about anything but politics," Stewart ultimately said. Because of this, Stewart is launching the hashtag #WorstResponders and begging people to tweet to McConnell and members of Congress. Stewart then invited the panel he had 5 and a half years ago back on the show. Only, 75 percent of the panel couldn't appear. You're going to want to see this: Part 1:
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah Get More: The Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,The Daily Show Video Archive
Part 2: Mitch McConnell just can't hide from #WorstRespondersThe Daily Show with Trevor Noah Get More: The Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,The Daily Show Video Archive
No, you don't need to adjust your television, a bearded Jon Stewart has not taken back "The Daily Show," but he did join Trevor Noah on Monday evening to discuss something he's been a huge advocate about. “I can't believe it! This is awesome!” new host Trevor Noah exclaimed. “Oh, wait, wait, wait, shit, are you here to take the show back? I heard about this in American TV,” referring, of course, to the clusterfuck that was the "Tonight Show." But, no, it was about something more important. “I have this issue I care about very deeply and I was wondering, I want to get attention paid to it, but I was realizing I don't have a show, and nobody gives a shit anymore," Stewart said honestly. "So I thought, you have a show, and maybe I could come and…" he trailed off flexing his puppy-dog eyebrows. Last week, Stewart was on Capitol Hill irate because Congress never extended the post 9/11 benefits. In fact, there is still no permanent law to help the more than 33,000 people who are still getting 9/11 related medical care. Oddly enough, most members of the House and Senate are signed on to the bill, yet the bill hasn't been passed by either chamber of Congress. “Of course there was no reason not to renew it permanently, but they did not renew it anyway!” Stewart said of what is called the Zadroga Act. “It expired in September. Soon to be out of money, these first responders, many sick with cancers and pulmonary disease, had to travel at their expense to Washington, D.C., hundreds of times to plead for our government to do the right thing.” “The only conclusion that I can draw," he added, "is that the people of Congress are not as good a people as the people who are first responders." They ran a video of Stewart's work in The Hill meeting with officials or staff. "These guys are all dying," Stewart said to Rob Portman’s communications director. "So we would like to stop that." Later he ran into Portman and shamed him and other members who haven't done the right thing. Ultimately, it worked so Stewart concluded that shame might actually be effective. But it's what he does to Mitch McConnell that you're really going to want to watch. Stewart even chokes back his turtle impression before saying that last week the first responders were told the Zadroga Act would be included in the transportation bill passed last week. But it was Mitch McConnell who pulled it out. "Mitch McConnell doesn't give a shit about anything but politics," Stewart ultimately said. Because of this, Stewart is launching the hashtag #WorstResponders and begging people to tweet to McConnell and members of Congress. Stewart then invited the panel he had 5 and a half years ago back on the show. Only, 75 percent of the panel couldn't appear. You're going to want to see this: Part 1: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah Get More: The Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,The Daily Show Video Archive
Part 2: Mitch McConnell just can't hide from #WorstRespondersThe Daily Show with Trevor Noah Get More: The Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,The Daily Show Video Archive
December 7, 2015
The Donald ramps up the anti-Muslim bigotry: Trump now calls for “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”
Donald Trump doesn't want to take any chances potentially importing terror into the safe confines of the United States and has taken the rational, reasoned and measured step of calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" -- including visitors, Muslim Americans currently abroad and refugees. Forgive the facetious take but we've reached the logical next step in The Donald's fact-free campaign against American Muslims and Muslims more broadly after weeks of the GOP presidential frontrunner insisting that, lacking a bit of corroborating evidence, he witnessed "thousand and thousands" of Muslims in Northern New Jersey publicly celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Let's not forget his modest proposals to register all American Muslims and spy on mosques. Now, Trump's jumped to completely banning all Muslims. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status... Trump's new statement cited a recent Pew poll chartered by the infamous Islamophobe Frank Gaffney to argue that "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population": 
According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.""Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump said. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until recently we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life." Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, told the Associated Press that Trump's proposed ban would apply to "everybody," including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists. According to Politico, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was quick to condemn Trump's statement, calling it “a ridiculous view” on the Michael Medved radio show Monday afternoon. “This is the kind of things that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about,” Christie said. “We need to cooperate with peaceful Muslim Americans who want to give us intelligence.” Long shot candidate Lindsey Graham also called out Trump's extreme rhetoric, demanding that his fellow Republican rivals join him in condemning Trump's remarks: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/s... https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/s... https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/s... Jeb Bush has also joined in on the Trump pile-on: https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/67... Other candidates were barely as bold. According to the Washington Post, Ohio Governor John Kasich called Trump's comments "just more of the outrageous divisiveness that characterizes his every breath." And here is Texas Senator Ted Cruz's lacking response: https://twitter.com/RosieGray/status/... The White House swiftly condemned Trump's statement on Monday, calling Trump's proposal "contrary to our values as Americans," according to The Daily Beast. In an interview with CNN, White House deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes expounded, explaining that "we have in our Bill of Rights respect for the freedom of religion. Muslim Americans have made extraordinary contributions to our country, but it's also contrary to our security."
Fox News suspends contributors for lashing out at President Obama in separate expletive-laden on-air rants
Fox News has suspended two contributors, Ralph Peters and Stacey Dash, who described President Obama as a "p**sy" who doesn't "give a s**t" on air today, reports CNN. Peters' and Dash's comments "were completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air," Fox News senior executive vice president Bill Shine said in a statement announcing the suspensions this afternoon. Peters, who Fox describes as its “strategic analyst," called the president a "total pu---" who "doesn't want to hurt our enemies" during an apperance on Fox Business Channel on Monday. “This guy, [he] is such a total p**sy, it’s stunning,” Peters told host Stuart Varney, reacting to the president's recent address on terrorism. On her regular turn on the "Outnumbered" couch on Fox News Monday afternoon, former Clueless star Stacey Dash just couldn't contain her anger at President Obama's Sunday evening Oval Office address on terror, saying that "I felt like he could give a shit -- excuse me, like he could care less." "Fox Business Network and Fox News Channel do not condone the use of such language, and have suspended both Peters and Dash for two weeks," Shine said. Both Peters and Dash have been suspended for two weeks. A sure sign of the contributors' coming sacrifice came from the network's "media critic," Howard Kurtz, who tweeted his disapproval of both Dash's and Peter's on-air antics that earlier in the day: https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... Fox News' faithful did not take word of the pair's suspension kindly, taking to Twitter to lash out at the decision and rally to their support: https://twitter.com/Jay_Severin/statu... https://twitter.com/MACHTink/status/6... https://twitter.com/CrewFanatic/statu... https://twitter.com/Junebug1952/statu... https://twitter.com/PP15146407/status... 
Fox News has suspended two contributors, Ralph Peters and Stacey Dash, who described President Obama as a "p**sy" who doesn't "give a s**t" on air today, reports CNN. Peters' and Dash's comments "were completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air," Fox News senior executive vice president Bill Shine said in a statement announcing the suspensions this afternoon. Peters, who Fox describes as its “strategic analyst," called the president a "total pu---" who "doesn't want to hurt our enemies" during an apperance on Fox Business Channel on Monday. “This guy, [he] is such a total p**sy, it’s stunning,” Peters told host Stuart Varney, reacting to the president's recent address on terrorism. On her regular turn on the "Outnumbered" couch on Fox News Monday afternoon, former Clueless star Stacey Dash just couldn't contain her anger at President Obama's Sunday evening Oval Office address on terror, saying that "I felt like he could give a shit -- excuse me, like he could care less." "Fox Business Network and Fox News Channel do not condone the use of such language, and have suspended both Peters and Dash for two weeks," Shine said. Both Peters and Dash have been suspended for two weeks. A sure sign of the contributors' coming sacrifice came from the network's "media critic," Howard Kurtz, who tweeted his disapproval of both Dash's and Peter's on-air antics that earlier in the day: https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... Fox News' faithful did not take word of the pair's suspension kindly, taking to Twitter to lash out at the decision and rally to their support: https://twitter.com/Jay_Severin/statu... https://twitter.com/MACHTink/status/6... https://twitter.com/CrewFanatic/statu... https://twitter.com/Junebug1952/statu... https://twitter.com/PP15146407/status... Fox News has suspended two contributors, Ralph Peters and Stacey Dash, who described President Obama as a "p**sy" who doesn't "give a s**t" on air today, reports CNN. Peters' and Dash's comments "were completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air," Fox News senior executive vice president Bill Shine said in a statement announcing the suspensions this afternoon. Peters, who Fox describes as its “strategic analyst," called the president a "total pu---" who "doesn't want to hurt our enemies" during an apperance on Fox Business Channel on Monday. “This guy, [he] is such a total p**sy, it’s stunning,” Peters told host Stuart Varney, reacting to the president's recent address on terrorism. On her regular turn on the "Outnumbered" couch on Fox News Monday afternoon, former Clueless star Stacey Dash just couldn't contain her anger at President Obama's Sunday evening Oval Office address on terror, saying that "I felt like he could give a shit -- excuse me, like he could care less." "Fox Business Network and Fox News Channel do not condone the use of such language, and have suspended both Peters and Dash for two weeks," Shine said. Both Peters and Dash have been suspended for two weeks. A sure sign of the contributors' coming sacrifice came from the network's "media critic," Howard Kurtz, who tweeted his disapproval of both Dash's and Peter's on-air antics that earlier in the day: https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... Fox News' faithful did not take word of the pair's suspension kindly, taking to Twitter to lash out at the decision and rally to their support: https://twitter.com/Jay_Severin/statu... https://twitter.com/MACHTink/status/6... https://twitter.com/CrewFanatic/statu... https://twitter.com/Junebug1952/statu... https://twitter.com/PP15146407/status...
Fox News has suspended two contributors, Ralph Peters and Stacey Dash, who described President Obama as a "p**sy" who doesn't "give a s**t" on air today, reports CNN. Peters' and Dash's comments "were completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air," Fox News senior executive vice president Bill Shine said in a statement announcing the suspensions this afternoon. Peters, who Fox describes as its “strategic analyst," called the president a "total pu---" who "doesn't want to hurt our enemies" during an apperance on Fox Business Channel on Monday. “This guy, [he] is such a total p**sy, it’s stunning,” Peters told host Stuart Varney, reacting to the president's recent address on terrorism. On her regular turn on the "Outnumbered" couch on Fox News Monday afternoon, former Clueless star Stacey Dash just couldn't contain her anger at President Obama's Sunday evening Oval Office address on terror, saying that "I felt like he could give a shit -- excuse me, like he could care less." "Fox Business Network and Fox News Channel do not condone the use of such language, and have suspended both Peters and Dash for two weeks," Shine said. Both Peters and Dash have been suspended for two weeks. A sure sign of the contributors' coming sacrifice came from the network's "media critic," Howard Kurtz, who tweeted his disapproval of both Dash's and Peter's on-air antics that earlier in the day: https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... Fox News' faithful did not take word of the pair's suspension kindly, taking to Twitter to lash out at the decision and rally to their support: https://twitter.com/Jay_Severin/statu... https://twitter.com/MACHTink/status/6... https://twitter.com/CrewFanatic/statu... https://twitter.com/Junebug1952/statu... https://twitter.com/PP15146407/status... Fox News has suspended two contributors, Ralph Peters and Stacey Dash, who described President Obama as a "p**sy" who doesn't "give a s**t" on air today, reports CNN. Peters' and Dash's comments "were completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air," Fox News senior executive vice president Bill Shine said in a statement announcing the suspensions this afternoon. Peters, who Fox describes as its “strategic analyst," called the president a "total pu---" who "doesn't want to hurt our enemies" during an apperance on Fox Business Channel on Monday. “This guy, [he] is such a total p**sy, it’s stunning,” Peters told host Stuart Varney, reacting to the president's recent address on terrorism. On her regular turn on the "Outnumbered" couch on Fox News Monday afternoon, former Clueless star Stacey Dash just couldn't contain her anger at President Obama's Sunday evening Oval Office address on terror, saying that "I felt like he could give a shit -- excuse me, like he could care less." "Fox Business Network and Fox News Channel do not condone the use of such language, and have suspended both Peters and Dash for two weeks," Shine said. Both Peters and Dash have been suspended for two weeks. A sure sign of the contributors' coming sacrifice came from the network's "media critic," Howard Kurtz, who tweeted his disapproval of both Dash's and Peter's on-air antics that earlier in the day: https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/statu... Fox News' faithful did not take word of the pair's suspension kindly, taking to Twitter to lash out at the decision and rally to their support: https://twitter.com/Jay_Severin/statu... https://twitter.com/MACHTink/status/6... https://twitter.com/CrewFanatic/statu... https://twitter.com/Junebug1952/statu... https://twitter.com/PP15146407/status...
This is how Bernie Sanders wins: The appeal to Donald Trump voters that would turn 2016 upside down
Donald Trump has carved out an interesting niche for himself in the Republican Party. In recent years, the GOP has been dominated by conservative evangelicals and what you might call the establishment wing of the party – think Mike Huckabee or Ben Carson versus Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. But Trump is a bit of an enigma – he doesn’t fit neatly into either of these boxes. Thanks to a new survey released by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute, we now have some clarity on the Trump demographic. The average Trumpite is old, white, disaffected, without a college education, and part of the working-class. Unsurprisingly, he is also likely to project his economic discontent on immigrants, the default boogeyman for confused Jingoists. William Galston summed up the results of the survey in a column for the Wall Street Journal: 
Donald Trump has carved out an interesting niche for himself in the Republican Party. In recent years, the GOP has been dominated by conservative evangelicals and what you might call the establishment wing of the party – think Mike Huckabee or Ben Carson versus Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. But Trump is a bit of an enigma – he doesn’t fit neatly into either of these boxes. Thanks to a new survey released by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute, we now have some clarity on the Trump demographic. The average Trumpite is old, white, disaffected, without a college education, and part of the working-class. Unsurprisingly, he is also likely to project his economic discontent on immigrants, the default boogeyman for confused Jingoists. William Galston summed up the results of the survey in a column for the Wall Street Journal:
“Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 39% of the white working class backs Mr. Trump, twice his share of white college-educated voters. Fifty-five percent of his supporters are white working class, compared with 35% for the rest of the Republican field and only 32% for Mr. Carson. Among Mr. Trump’s white working-class supporters, the demographic group most likely to back him is composed of men ages 50-64, with no more than a high-school education. Compared with other groups in the PRRI-Brookings survey, these men are the least likely to believe that immigrants strengthen the U.S. and the most likely to believe that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens. More than other voters, they are disturbed by the rising prevalence of non-English speakers in the U.S. And many blame Chinese imports and corporate outsourcing for U.S. job losses.”These findings confirm what has been obvious for months now: Trump is a faux-populist whose singular appeal is rooted in racism and identity politics. Frustratingly, the Trump voter correctly diagnoses the problem, which is that the power structure doesn’t serve the working or middle class in this country, but he also misidentifies the enemy. It’s not Mexicans or Muslims or some other minority group outsourcing jobs or buying elections or rigging the tax code in favor of special interests – corporations and their deregulating cronies in office (on both sides) are responsible for that, as are the broader forces of globalization and neoliberalism. And yet the ire of the typical Trumpite is directed at foreigners and black people. For instance, only 30 percent of white Republicans and Republican-leaning independents supporting Trump think immigrants strengthen the country; 60 percent believe discrimination against white people is as prevalent as discrimination against black people; and “72 percent believe that the Confederate flag symbolizes Southern pride rather than racism.” These are the paroxysms of a paranoid conservative base that is angry with the status quo but deeply confused about who or what is responsible. Hard times are generally good to fascists because people need an enemy, someone to pin their problems on. And there is a latent racism always lurking beneath the surface in American politics; Trump, who I don’t believe takes any of this seriously, is shamelessly exploiting it. The media is more than justified in covering the xenophobia driving Trump’s campaign, but equally depressing – and less covered – is the fact that most Trump supporters, if they weren’t blinkered by racism, would be supporting someone like Bernie Sanders, who actually represents their economic interests. That Trump has emerged as the hero for a beleaguered white working class shows just how misguided his supporters are. Trump is a trust fund baby who inherited $40 million from his father. As Dylan Matthews noted in September, “Trump would’ve been a billionaire even if he’d never had a career in real estate, and had instead thrown his father’s inheritance into an index fund that tracked the market.” In other words, Trump is the last person the working class should fetishize as a model of “bootstraps” conservatism. More importantly, Trump has nothing in the way of solutions. The WSJ calls him “the staunchest champion of the white working class that American politics has seen in decades,” and yet his campaign consists entirely of trite platitudes wrapped in nativist bile. He has no experience in government, no serious economic proposals, and no answers. Trump is an empty vessel onto which angry and disillusioned white people can project their resentment, and nothing more. But if Trump supporters were more interested in class than race, if they were honestly seeking an economic populist, someone who will advance the interests of the entire working class, they’d flock to Bernie Sanders. Sanders doesn’t traffic in xenophobia like Trump does, but he speaks directly to the concerns of alienated Trump supporters, and he does so in a serious and non-platitudinous way. In fact, Sanders just gave a seminal speech in which he explained, in very clear terms, what’s wrong with the very system against which Trump voters are revolting. Sanders shattered the false narratives around the term “socialism” and articulated a vision of America that appeals to the working poor and to the broader middle class. Conservatives, however, are conditioned to reject Sanders without ever listening to what he says, and that’s a function of a much deeper ideological problem. And that problem isn’t new. Conservatives have voted against their interests for several decades. As the WSJ concedes:
“Since the late 1960s, white working-class voters have deserted the Democratic Party in droves and now form a key component of the Republican base. For most of this period, the Republican establishment has held these voters with social conservatism and a tough-sounding foreign policy. But now working-class voters are in full revolt against policies – trade treaties, immigration reform and crony capitalism, among others – that they see as inimical to their interests.”The economic grievances of Trump supporters are legitimate and shared with many on the Left. Trump puts a false face on those grievances and, sadly, that works in our current climate. But he has no plan to fix anything, and appears not to care. He’s content to stoke racial fires until his shtick runs its course, however long that is. Meanwhile, Sanders – and to a lesser degree, Hillary Clinton – are proposing concrete alternatives to the status quo. Sanders’s economic populism isn’t couched in vitriol and hate, but his policies would make life infinitely better for the vast majority of Trump voters. But so long as they’re consumed with fear and misplaced anger, none of that matters. And nothing much will change.
Donald Trump has carved out an interesting niche for himself in the Republican Party. In recent years, the GOP has been dominated by conservative evangelicals and what you might call the establishment wing of the party – think Mike Huckabee or Ben Carson versus Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. But Trump is a bit of an enigma – he doesn’t fit neatly into either of these boxes. Thanks to a new survey released by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute, we now have some clarity on the Trump demographic. The average Trumpite is old, white, disaffected, without a college education, and part of the working-class. Unsurprisingly, he is also likely to project his economic discontent on immigrants, the default boogeyman for confused Jingoists. William Galston summed up the results of the survey in a column for the Wall Street Journal: “Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 39% of the white working class backs Mr. Trump, twice his share of white college-educated voters. Fifty-five percent of his supporters are white working class, compared with 35% for the rest of the Republican field and only 32% for Mr. Carson. Among Mr. Trump’s white working-class supporters, the demographic group most likely to back him is composed of men ages 50-64, with no more than a high-school education. Compared with other groups in the PRRI-Brookings survey, these men are the least likely to believe that immigrants strengthen the U.S. and the most likely to believe that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens. More than other voters, they are disturbed by the rising prevalence of non-English speakers in the U.S. And many blame Chinese imports and corporate outsourcing for U.S. job losses.”These findings confirm what has been obvious for months now: Trump is a faux-populist whose singular appeal is rooted in racism and identity politics. Frustratingly, the Trump voter correctly diagnoses the problem, which is that the power structure doesn’t serve the working or middle class in this country, but he also misidentifies the enemy. It’s not Mexicans or Muslims or some other minority group outsourcing jobs or buying elections or rigging the tax code in favor of special interests – corporations and their deregulating cronies in office (on both sides) are responsible for that, as are the broader forces of globalization and neoliberalism. And yet the ire of the typical Trumpite is directed at foreigners and black people. For instance, only 30 percent of white Republicans and Republican-leaning independents supporting Trump think immigrants strengthen the country; 60 percent believe discrimination against white people is as prevalent as discrimination against black people; and “72 percent believe that the Confederate flag symbolizes Southern pride rather than racism.” These are the paroxysms of a paranoid conservative base that is angry with the status quo but deeply confused about who or what is responsible. Hard times are generally good to fascists because people need an enemy, someone to pin their problems on. And there is a latent racism always lurking beneath the surface in American politics; Trump, who I don’t believe takes any of this seriously, is shamelessly exploiting it. The media is more than justified in covering the xenophobia driving Trump’s campaign, but equally depressing – and less covered – is the fact that most Trump supporters, if they weren’t blinkered by racism, would be supporting someone like Bernie Sanders, who actually represents their economic interests. That Trump has emerged as the hero for a beleaguered white working class shows just how misguided his supporters are. Trump is a trust fund baby who inherited $40 million from his father. As Dylan Matthews noted in September, “Trump would’ve been a billionaire even if he’d never had a career in real estate, and had instead thrown his father’s inheritance into an index fund that tracked the market.” In other words, Trump is the last person the working class should fetishize as a model of “bootstraps” conservatism. More importantly, Trump has nothing in the way of solutions. The WSJ calls him “the staunchest champion of the white working class that American politics has seen in decades,” and yet his campaign consists entirely of trite platitudes wrapped in nativist bile. He has no experience in government, no serious economic proposals, and no answers. Trump is an empty vessel onto which angry and disillusioned white people can project their resentment, and nothing more. But if Trump supporters were more interested in class than race, if they were honestly seeking an economic populist, someone who will advance the interests of the entire working class, they’d flock to Bernie Sanders. Sanders doesn’t traffic in xenophobia like Trump does, but he speaks directly to the concerns of alienated Trump supporters, and he does so in a serious and non-platitudinous way. In fact, Sanders just gave a seminal speech in which he explained, in very clear terms, what’s wrong with the very system against which Trump voters are revolting. Sanders shattered the false narratives around the term “socialism” and articulated a vision of America that appeals to the working poor and to the broader middle class. Conservatives, however, are conditioned to reject Sanders without ever listening to what he says, and that’s a function of a much deeper ideological problem. And that problem isn’t new. Conservatives have voted against their interests for several decades. As the WSJ concedes:
“Since the late 1960s, white working-class voters have deserted the Democratic Party in droves and now form a key component of the Republican base. For most of this period, the Republican establishment has held these voters with social conservatism and a tough-sounding foreign policy. But now working-class voters are in full revolt against policies – trade treaties, immigration reform and crony capitalism, among others – that they see as inimical to their interests.”The economic grievances of Trump supporters are legitimate and shared with many on the Left. Trump puts a false face on those grievances and, sadly, that works in our current climate. But he has no plan to fix anything, and appears not to care. He’s content to stoke racial fires until his shtick runs its course, however long that is. Meanwhile, Sanders – and to a lesser degree, Hillary Clinton – are proposing concrete alternatives to the status quo. Sanders’s economic populism isn’t couched in vitriol and hate, but his policies would make life infinitely better for the vast majority of Trump voters. But so long as they’re consumed with fear and misplaced anger, none of that matters. And nothing much will change.
If you live in fear, it multiplies fast: “Your entire world simply looks more scary”
The recent outbreaks of mass violence – especially the attacks on Paris and San Bernardino – have amplified fear, distrust, and paranoia. A New York Times op-ed on Sunday – “National Cognitive Therapy” – described a national mood of anxiety. “We would be fools to insist on being unafraid in the presence of threat,” Richard A. Friedman of the Weill Cornell Medical College wrote. “But we cannot allow fear to rule – or ruin – our lives.” In his Sunday night address, President Obama spoke about the importance of remaining confident in the face of threat. “Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.” But the fear continues to spread, and it’s begun to redraw the 2016 presidential race, especially on the Republican side, where the tone has become more bloodthirsty. What effect does fear have on us, our society, politics, and values? We spoke to University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman, author of “Smart Thinking,” and co-host of the radio program “Two Guys On Your Head.” We spoke to Markman from his office in Austin. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. We keep hearing that we should not let fear consume us. But a lot of people are afraid nonetheless, especially after the attacks in Paris and California. What does fear do to us at the individual level? There are a couple of different elements to fear. The first is, in the moment – when you experience fear – you get a release of a hormone called cortisol, you get an adrenaline rush. It has a lot of effects on the brain when you’re in a fear state. It tends to narrow your focus of attention, and it tends to decrease working memory capacity. Complicated decisions become more difficult for you. A lot of times this fear response – in our evolutionary [history] – was triggered by things that were in fact really dangerous in the moment. Immediate, short-term threats. Exactly right. So we’re getting reactions that would be great if we had to fight something off. If you’re in a legitimately dangerous situation, that’s a great reaction to have. If you’re sitting in the comfort of your home, but watching a frightening event on television, or just experiencing serious dread because of having read the news, that reaction is not as valuable. And we as humans are capable of carrying on a fear response for an awfully long time. What are initial benefits in a dangerous situation become a real drag over the long term. Chronic stress – which is basically a chronic fear response – leads to a depressed immune system. You’ll actually physically make yourself sick if you maintain that fear response. [Fear] heightens your sensitivity to potential negative outcomes in you environment. Being fearful of a particular thing makes you aware of all the fearful things: Your entire world simply looks more scary. If you’re afraid of something like a terrorist attack, it colors the way you look at everything else. That’s right – so now you’re fearful of domestic problems. You’re fearful of the economy. You’re fearful of candidates who might take away your right. Everything becomes scarier when you’re afraid. What effects does fear have on a society and its politics? How do you create the absence of fear? You gravitate toward things that provide security: Armies and policing. Things designed to protect us from dangers. It’s like when you think of a football team – the difference between playing to win a game versus playing not to lose. When you get into a chronic fearful state as a society, you start playing not to lose: When you’re in an avoidance mode, your goal is to avoid calamity. You don’t take risks in order to achieve greatness – you take risks to ensure that nobody gets hurt. To the extent that we want to be creative as a society, to be innovative as society, to solve difficult societal problems – if we want to engage those in creative ways, then a fear-based approach is not likely to lead us there. It makes us less cautious, less creative, more concerned about security and might… What does it do to our value systems as a society? You’re much less likely to be open to new things, because new things are unknown, and their outcomes are unknown. You’re much more likely to be doing what you’re been doing before… You’re much more likely to be in favor of military spending, to be in favor of giving up individual rights in favor of collective security. If you think of 9/11, the PATRIOT Act traded individual rights for collective security. People who, in other less fearful circumstances, went along with things that restricted individual rights in the presence of that fear. Does this period remind you of the post-9/11 period? One of the things great national tragedies can do is to bring people together. There was tremendous unity after 9/11… It’s probably the last time we’ve seen significant bipartisan cooperation in Washington, D.C. Right now, politically we’re seeing a real fracturing: The Republican primary is all over the place, and the gap between Democrats and Republicans is enormous. There is no sense in which what we’re experiencing is leading to a national unity. One of the dangers with [fear] is that there are some serious issues that need to be solved; these are complex issues. The topic of firearms has a lot of complexity to it: Anyone who thinks there’s a simple solution – either arm everyone or arm no one – is probably wrong. It will require some real significant thought and some real significant compromise from people who disagree on things. It’s the same with individual rights versus security, with our desire to take in refugees versus our desire for security. These are all complicated issues. But in times of fear we seek messages that feel secure to us. We seek messages that reinforce our existing beliefs. And part of our fracturing right now is we have people clinging to beliefs that are comfortable to them. In the short term, that leads us to feel a little more secure. In the long run, it doesn’t push us any closer to the problem we face. 
The recent outbreaks of mass violence – especially the attacks on Paris and San Bernardino – have amplified fear, distrust, and paranoia. A New York Times op-ed on Sunday – “National Cognitive Therapy” – described a national mood of anxiety. “We would be fools to insist on being unafraid in the presence of threat,” Richard A. Friedman of the Weill Cornell Medical College wrote. “But we cannot allow fear to rule – or ruin – our lives.” In his Sunday night address, President Obama spoke about the importance of remaining confident in the face of threat. “Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.” But the fear continues to spread, and it’s begun to redraw the 2016 presidential race, especially on the Republican side, where the tone has become more bloodthirsty. What effect does fear have on us, our society, politics, and values? We spoke to University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman, author of “Smart Thinking,” and co-host of the radio program “Two Guys On Your Head.” We spoke to Markman from his office in Austin. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. We keep hearing that we should not let fear consume us. But a lot of people are afraid nonetheless, especially after the attacks in Paris and California. What does fear do to us at the individual level? There are a couple of different elements to fear. The first is, in the moment – when you experience fear – you get a release of a hormone called cortisol, you get an adrenaline rush. It has a lot of effects on the brain when you’re in a fear state. It tends to narrow your focus of attention, and it tends to decrease working memory capacity. Complicated decisions become more difficult for you. A lot of times this fear response – in our evolutionary [history] – was triggered by things that were in fact really dangerous in the moment. Immediate, short-term threats. Exactly right. So we’re getting reactions that would be great if we had to fight something off. If you’re in a legitimately dangerous situation, that’s a great reaction to have. If you’re sitting in the comfort of your home, but watching a frightening event on television, or just experiencing serious dread because of having read the news, that reaction is not as valuable. And we as humans are capable of carrying on a fear response for an awfully long time. What are initial benefits in a dangerous situation become a real drag over the long term. Chronic stress – which is basically a chronic fear response – leads to a depressed immune system. You’ll actually physically make yourself sick if you maintain that fear response. [Fear] heightens your sensitivity to potential negative outcomes in you environment. Being fearful of a particular thing makes you aware of all the fearful things: Your entire world simply looks more scary. If you’re afraid of something like a terrorist attack, it colors the way you look at everything else. That’s right – so now you’re fearful of domestic problems. You’re fearful of the economy. You’re fearful of candidates who might take away your right. Everything becomes scarier when you’re afraid. What effects does fear have on a society and its politics? How do you create the absence of fear? You gravitate toward things that provide security: Armies and policing. Things designed to protect us from dangers. It’s like when you think of a football team – the difference between playing to win a game versus playing not to lose. When you get into a chronic fearful state as a society, you start playing not to lose: When you’re in an avoidance mode, your goal is to avoid calamity. You don’t take risks in order to achieve greatness – you take risks to ensure that nobody gets hurt. To the extent that we want to be creative as a society, to be innovative as society, to solve difficult societal problems – if we want to engage those in creative ways, then a fear-based approach is not likely to lead us there. It makes us less cautious, less creative, more concerned about security and might… What does it do to our value systems as a society? You’re much less likely to be open to new things, because new things are unknown, and their outcomes are unknown. You’re much more likely to be doing what you’re been doing before… You’re much more likely to be in favor of military spending, to be in favor of giving up individual rights in favor of collective security. If you think of 9/11, the PATRIOT Act traded individual rights for collective security. People who, in other less fearful circumstances, went along with things that restricted individual rights in the presence of that fear. Does this period remind you of the post-9/11 period? One of the things great national tragedies can do is to bring people together. There was tremendous unity after 9/11… It’s probably the last time we’ve seen significant bipartisan cooperation in Washington, D.C. Right now, politically we’re seeing a real fracturing: The Republican primary is all over the place, and the gap between Democrats and Republicans is enormous. There is no sense in which what we’re experiencing is leading to a national unity. One of the dangers with [fear] is that there are some serious issues that need to be solved; these are complex issues. The topic of firearms has a lot of complexity to it: Anyone who thinks there’s a simple solution – either arm everyone or arm no one – is probably wrong. It will require some real significant thought and some real significant compromise from people who disagree on things. It’s the same with individual rights versus security, with our desire to take in refugees versus our desire for security. These are all complicated issues. But in times of fear we seek messages that feel secure to us. We seek messages that reinforce our existing beliefs. And part of our fracturing right now is we have people clinging to beliefs that are comfortable to them. In the short term, that leads us to feel a little more secure. In the long run, it doesn’t push us any closer to the problem we face. The recent outbreaks of mass violence – especially the attacks on Paris and San Bernardino – have amplified fear, distrust, and paranoia. A New York Times op-ed on Sunday – “National Cognitive Therapy” – described a national mood of anxiety. “We would be fools to insist on being unafraid in the presence of threat,” Richard A. Friedman of the Weill Cornell Medical College wrote. “But we cannot allow fear to rule – or ruin – our lives.” In his Sunday night address, President Obama spoke about the importance of remaining confident in the face of threat. “Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.” But the fear continues to spread, and it’s begun to redraw the 2016 presidential race, especially on the Republican side, where the tone has become more bloodthirsty. What effect does fear have on us, our society, politics, and values? We spoke to University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman, author of “Smart Thinking,” and co-host of the radio program “Two Guys On Your Head.” We spoke to Markman from his office in Austin. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. We keep hearing that we should not let fear consume us. But a lot of people are afraid nonetheless, especially after the attacks in Paris and California. What does fear do to us at the individual level? There are a couple of different elements to fear. The first is, in the moment – when you experience fear – you get a release of a hormone called cortisol, you get an adrenaline rush. It has a lot of effects on the brain when you’re in a fear state. It tends to narrow your focus of attention, and it tends to decrease working memory capacity. Complicated decisions become more difficult for you. A lot of times this fear response – in our evolutionary [history] – was triggered by things that were in fact really dangerous in the moment. Immediate, short-term threats. Exactly right. So we’re getting reactions that would be great if we had to fight something off. If you’re in a legitimately dangerous situation, that’s a great reaction to have. If you’re sitting in the comfort of your home, but watching a frightening event on television, or just experiencing serious dread because of having read the news, that reaction is not as valuable. And we as humans are capable of carrying on a fear response for an awfully long time. What are initial benefits in a dangerous situation become a real drag over the long term. Chronic stress – which is basically a chronic fear response – leads to a depressed immune system. You’ll actually physically make yourself sick if you maintain that fear response. [Fear] heightens your sensitivity to potential negative outcomes in you environment. Being fearful of a particular thing makes you aware of all the fearful things: Your entire world simply looks more scary. If you’re afraid of something like a terrorist attack, it colors the way you look at everything else. That’s right – so now you’re fearful of domestic problems. You’re fearful of the economy. You’re fearful of candidates who might take away your right. Everything becomes scarier when you’re afraid. What effects does fear have on a society and its politics? How do you create the absence of fear? You gravitate toward things that provide security: Armies and policing. Things designed to protect us from dangers. It’s like when you think of a football team – the difference between playing to win a game versus playing not to lose. When you get into a chronic fearful state as a society, you start playing not to lose: When you’re in an avoidance mode, your goal is to avoid calamity. You don’t take risks in order to achieve greatness – you take risks to ensure that nobody gets hurt. To the extent that we want to be creative as a society, to be innovative as society, to solve difficult societal problems – if we want to engage those in creative ways, then a fear-based approach is not likely to lead us there. It makes us less cautious, less creative, more concerned about security and might… What does it do to our value systems as a society? You’re much less likely to be open to new things, because new things are unknown, and their outcomes are unknown. You’re much more likely to be doing what you’re been doing before… You’re much more likely to be in favor of military spending, to be in favor of giving up individual rights in favor of collective security. If you think of 9/11, the PATRIOT Act traded individual rights for collective security. People who, in other less fearful circumstances, went along with things that restricted individual rights in the presence of that fear. Does this period remind you of the post-9/11 period? One of the things great national tragedies can do is to bring people together. There was tremendous unity after 9/11… It’s probably the last time we’ve seen significant bipartisan cooperation in Washington, D.C. Right now, politically we’re seeing a real fracturing: The Republican primary is all over the place, and the gap between Democrats and Republicans is enormous. There is no sense in which what we’re experiencing is leading to a national unity. One of the dangers with [fear] is that there are some serious issues that need to be solved; these are complex issues. The topic of firearms has a lot of complexity to it: Anyone who thinks there’s a simple solution – either arm everyone or arm no one – is probably wrong. It will require some real significant thought and some real significant compromise from people who disagree on things. It’s the same with individual rights versus security, with our desire to take in refugees versus our desire for security. These are all complicated issues. But in times of fear we seek messages that feel secure to us. We seek messages that reinforce our existing beliefs. And part of our fracturing right now is we have people clinging to beliefs that are comfortable to them. In the short term, that leads us to feel a little more secure. In the long run, it doesn’t push us any closer to the problem we face.
The recent outbreaks of mass violence – especially the attacks on Paris and San Bernardino – have amplified fear, distrust, and paranoia. A New York Times op-ed on Sunday – “National Cognitive Therapy” – described a national mood of anxiety. “We would be fools to insist on being unafraid in the presence of threat,” Richard A. Friedman of the Weill Cornell Medical College wrote. “But we cannot allow fear to rule – or ruin – our lives.” In his Sunday night address, President Obama spoke about the importance of remaining confident in the face of threat. “Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.” But the fear continues to spread, and it’s begun to redraw the 2016 presidential race, especially on the Republican side, where the tone has become more bloodthirsty. What effect does fear have on us, our society, politics, and values? We spoke to University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman, author of “Smart Thinking,” and co-host of the radio program “Two Guys On Your Head.” We spoke to Markman from his office in Austin. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. We keep hearing that we should not let fear consume us. But a lot of people are afraid nonetheless, especially after the attacks in Paris and California. What does fear do to us at the individual level? There are a couple of different elements to fear. The first is, in the moment – when you experience fear – you get a release of a hormone called cortisol, you get an adrenaline rush. It has a lot of effects on the brain when you’re in a fear state. It tends to narrow your focus of attention, and it tends to decrease working memory capacity. Complicated decisions become more difficult for you. A lot of times this fear response – in our evolutionary [history] – was triggered by things that were in fact really dangerous in the moment. Immediate, short-term threats. Exactly right. So we’re getting reactions that would be great if we had to fight something off. If you’re in a legitimately dangerous situation, that’s a great reaction to have. If you’re sitting in the comfort of your home, but watching a frightening event on television, or just experiencing serious dread because of having read the news, that reaction is not as valuable. And we as humans are capable of carrying on a fear response for an awfully long time. What are initial benefits in a dangerous situation become a real drag over the long term. Chronic stress – which is basically a chronic fear response – leads to a depressed immune system. You’ll actually physically make yourself sick if you maintain that fear response. [Fear] heightens your sensitivity to potential negative outcomes in you environment. Being fearful of a particular thing makes you aware of all the fearful things: Your entire world simply looks more scary. If you’re afraid of something like a terrorist attack, it colors the way you look at everything else. That’s right – so now you’re fearful of domestic problems. You’re fearful of the economy. You’re fearful of candidates who might take away your right. Everything becomes scarier when you’re afraid. What effects does fear have on a society and its politics? How do you create the absence of fear? You gravitate toward things that provide security: Armies and policing. Things designed to protect us from dangers. It’s like when you think of a football team – the difference between playing to win a game versus playing not to lose. When you get into a chronic fearful state as a society, you start playing not to lose: When you’re in an avoidance mode, your goal is to avoid calamity. You don’t take risks in order to achieve greatness – you take risks to ensure that nobody gets hurt. To the extent that we want to be creative as a society, to be innovative as society, to solve difficult societal problems – if we want to engage those in creative ways, then a fear-based approach is not likely to lead us there. It makes us less cautious, less creative, more concerned about security and might… What does it do to our value systems as a society? You’re much less likely to be open to new things, because new things are unknown, and their outcomes are unknown. You’re much more likely to be doing what you’re been doing before… You’re much more likely to be in favor of military spending, to be in favor of giving up individual rights in favor of collective security. If you think of 9/11, the PATRIOT Act traded individual rights for collective security. People who, in other less fearful circumstances, went along with things that restricted individual rights in the presence of that fear. Does this period remind you of the post-9/11 period? One of the things great national tragedies can do is to bring people together. There was tremendous unity after 9/11… It’s probably the last time we’ve seen significant bipartisan cooperation in Washington, D.C. Right now, politically we’re seeing a real fracturing: The Republican primary is all over the place, and the gap between Democrats and Republicans is enormous. There is no sense in which what we’re experiencing is leading to a national unity. One of the dangers with [fear] is that there are some serious issues that need to be solved; these are complex issues. The topic of firearms has a lot of complexity to it: Anyone who thinks there’s a simple solution – either arm everyone or arm no one – is probably wrong. It will require some real significant thought and some real significant compromise from people who disagree on things. It’s the same with individual rights versus security, with our desire to take in refugees versus our desire for security. These are all complicated issues. But in times of fear we seek messages that feel secure to us. We seek messages that reinforce our existing beliefs. And part of our fracturing right now is we have people clinging to beliefs that are comfortable to them. In the short term, that leads us to feel a little more secure. In the long run, it doesn’t push us any closer to the problem we face. The recent outbreaks of mass violence – especially the attacks on Paris and San Bernardino – have amplified fear, distrust, and paranoia. A New York Times op-ed on Sunday – “National Cognitive Therapy” – described a national mood of anxiety. “We would be fools to insist on being unafraid in the presence of threat,” Richard A. Friedman of the Weill Cornell Medical College wrote. “But we cannot allow fear to rule – or ruin – our lives.” In his Sunday night address, President Obama spoke about the importance of remaining confident in the face of threat. “Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.” But the fear continues to spread, and it’s begun to redraw the 2016 presidential race, especially on the Republican side, where the tone has become more bloodthirsty. What effect does fear have on us, our society, politics, and values? We spoke to University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman, author of “Smart Thinking,” and co-host of the radio program “Two Guys On Your Head.” We spoke to Markman from his office in Austin. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. We keep hearing that we should not let fear consume us. But a lot of people are afraid nonetheless, especially after the attacks in Paris and California. What does fear do to us at the individual level? There are a couple of different elements to fear. The first is, in the moment – when you experience fear – you get a release of a hormone called cortisol, you get an adrenaline rush. It has a lot of effects on the brain when you’re in a fear state. It tends to narrow your focus of attention, and it tends to decrease working memory capacity. Complicated decisions become more difficult for you. A lot of times this fear response – in our evolutionary [history] – was triggered by things that were in fact really dangerous in the moment. Immediate, short-term threats. Exactly right. So we’re getting reactions that would be great if we had to fight something off. If you’re in a legitimately dangerous situation, that’s a great reaction to have. If you’re sitting in the comfort of your home, but watching a frightening event on television, or just experiencing serious dread because of having read the news, that reaction is not as valuable. And we as humans are capable of carrying on a fear response for an awfully long time. What are initial benefits in a dangerous situation become a real drag over the long term. Chronic stress – which is basically a chronic fear response – leads to a depressed immune system. You’ll actually physically make yourself sick if you maintain that fear response. [Fear] heightens your sensitivity to potential negative outcomes in you environment. Being fearful of a particular thing makes you aware of all the fearful things: Your entire world simply looks more scary. If you’re afraid of something like a terrorist attack, it colors the way you look at everything else. That’s right – so now you’re fearful of domestic problems. You’re fearful of the economy. You’re fearful of candidates who might take away your right. Everything becomes scarier when you’re afraid. What effects does fear have on a society and its politics? How do you create the absence of fear? You gravitate toward things that provide security: Armies and policing. Things designed to protect us from dangers. It’s like when you think of a football team – the difference between playing to win a game versus playing not to lose. When you get into a chronic fearful state as a society, you start playing not to lose: When you’re in an avoidance mode, your goal is to avoid calamity. You don’t take risks in order to achieve greatness – you take risks to ensure that nobody gets hurt. To the extent that we want to be creative as a society, to be innovative as society, to solve difficult societal problems – if we want to engage those in creative ways, then a fear-based approach is not likely to lead us there. It makes us less cautious, less creative, more concerned about security and might… What does it do to our value systems as a society? You’re much less likely to be open to new things, because new things are unknown, and their outcomes are unknown. You’re much more likely to be doing what you’re been doing before… You’re much more likely to be in favor of military spending, to be in favor of giving up individual rights in favor of collective security. If you think of 9/11, the PATRIOT Act traded individual rights for collective security. People who, in other less fearful circumstances, went along with things that restricted individual rights in the presence of that fear. Does this period remind you of the post-9/11 period? One of the things great national tragedies can do is to bring people together. There was tremendous unity after 9/11… It’s probably the last time we’ve seen significant bipartisan cooperation in Washington, D.C. Right now, politically we’re seeing a real fracturing: The Republican primary is all over the place, and the gap between Democrats and Republicans is enormous. There is no sense in which what we’re experiencing is leading to a national unity. One of the dangers with [fear] is that there are some serious issues that need to be solved; these are complex issues. The topic of firearms has a lot of complexity to it: Anyone who thinks there’s a simple solution – either arm everyone or arm no one – is probably wrong. It will require some real significant thought and some real significant compromise from people who disagree on things. It’s the same with individual rights versus security, with our desire to take in refugees versus our desire for security. These are all complicated issues. But in times of fear we seek messages that feel secure to us. We seek messages that reinforce our existing beliefs. And part of our fracturing right now is we have people clinging to beliefs that are comfortable to them. In the short term, that leads us to feel a little more secure. In the long run, it doesn’t push us any closer to the problem we face.
