Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 943
November 24, 2015
This is on Donald Trump and Fox News’ hands: Now their war on #blacklivesmatter draws real blood
The Associated Press is reporting that five people at a Black Lives Matter protest in Minneapolis were shot by a group of white supremacists on Monday evening. This is not a surprise. The appeal and power of old-fashioned, overt and transparent white racism is growing in the United States. The prime example of this phenomenon is the rise of Donald Trump, but the GOP front-runner is but one data point in a longer trend. Since the election of Barack Obama, white supremacists have increased their enrollment of new members. To that end, they have infiltrated Tea Party organizations to recruit racially resentful and angry white people who are beginning to think about politics in terms of “white group interests.” While anxiety about ISIS dominates the American news, the FBI has in fact identified domestic terrorism from white, right-wing Christians as the greatest domestic terrorism threat to the United States since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The right-wing news-entertainment media complex routinely uses eliminationist and violent rhetoric to describe liberals and progressives. There, the implicit (and often explicit) narrative is that those people who are not members of the American right-wing are “traitors,” “un-American” and deserving of whatever violence comes to them. This is not empty talk, hyperbole or “playful” rhetoric designed to cheer on Republicans and build up morale before a presidential election. The right-wing media has actually weaponized its followers. The results are those black folks killed by Dylann Roof in Charleston, the women’s reproductive health doctor George Tiller, and the other victims of right-wing domestic terrorists shot dead at Sikh Temples, Jewish Community Centers, and elsewhere in the United States. And as I wrote in an earlier essay here at Salon, Republican 2016 presidential primary candidates, as well as Fox News personalities such as Bill O’Reilly, have referred to members of the human rights advocacy group Black Lives Matter as “terrorists” or the new “Ku Klux Klan.” On Monday, I wrote a piece about how a Black Lives Matter protester was beaten upon by Donald Trump supporters at a Birmingham, Alabama, rally over the weekend. Trump endorsed that thuggery and was proud that his supporters were so spirited. Adding to the grotesqueness of Donald Trump’s embrace of political violence, Robert Kiger, a fundraiser aligned with a group backing Trump, made the bizarre suggestion that he, as a white man, would be beaten up if he went into a black church. Therefore, the violent attack on a Black Lives Matter protester at Trump’s rally was expected, understood and reasonable in Kiger’s twisted, demented and profoundly racist imagination. Ultimately, when Black Lives Matter’s basic claim for equal human rights and dignity is met by racist slogans such as “All Lives Matter” -- what is just a new and more polite version of “White Power!” -- the question is no longer “if” white on black and brown racially motivated violence will take place, but rather when, and to what extent? The 2016 presidential primary season has seen Republican candidates endorse internment camps for Syrian refugees, an enemies list for Muslims, making Christianity the official state religion of the United States, establishing a Gestapo-like force to eject “illegal immigrants” from the United States, and other actions that are unworthy of what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy. Those men and women who seek the office of the president of the United States should be responsible, reflective, and intelligent individuals. While they are members of a political party, these individuals should also be ambassadors of the Common Good who first and foremost want to advance and protect the General Welfare of the United States and its citizens. To this point in the campaign, the Republican 2016 primary presidential candidates, as a group, have not shown that they are capable of honoring that obligation. The presidential primary season is not over. There is still time for the Republican Party to rise to the occasion. To that end, will the 2016 Republican primary presidential candidates denounce Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the violence of his supporters or condemn last evening’s shootings of the Black Lives Matter protesters by white supremacists? Will this crop of potential GOP presidential nominees demand that their peers, as well as the right-wing Fox News propaganda machine, tone down their collective racist, nativist, xenophobic and violence-inducing rhetoric? The answer is likely to be “no.” Instead, the Republican 2016 presidential candidates will ignore the violence and bigotry they have encouraged or instead play the “victim” of the “liberal media.” The right-wing Fox News echo chamber will also likely spin fictions of “liberal infiltrators” or “agent provocateurs” that are actually committing violence at Donald Trump rallies or shooting Black Lives Matter activists in Minneapolis. As they have repeatedly done in recent American history, movement conservatives and their media will continue to strike a match in a room full of gasoline vapor and act surprised when it explodes. This is their version of the American Way. It is an agenda that retreats from normal politics, consensus-building, and an embrace of conservatism not as a reasonable respect for traditions and standing norms, but, rather as an embrace of a radical, destructive, and reactionary behavior that leaves the United States less safe, less secure, less prosperous and weaker than it was before.The Associated Press is reporting that five people at a Black Lives Matter protest in Minneapolis were shot by a group of white supremacists on Monday evening. This is not a surprise. The appeal and power of old-fashioned, overt and transparent white racism is growing in the United States. The prime example of this phenomenon is the rise of Donald Trump, but the GOP front-runner is but one data point in a longer trend. Since the election of Barack Obama, white supremacists have increased their enrollment of new members. To that end, they have infiltrated Tea Party organizations to recruit racially resentful and angry white people who are beginning to think about politics in terms of “white group interests.” While anxiety about ISIS dominates the American news, the FBI has in fact identified domestic terrorism from white, right-wing Christians as the greatest domestic terrorism threat to the United States since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The right-wing news-entertainment media complex routinely uses eliminationist and violent rhetoric to describe liberals and progressives. There, the implicit (and often explicit) narrative is that those people who are not members of the American right-wing are “traitors,” “un-American” and deserving of whatever violence comes to them. This is not empty talk, hyperbole or “playful” rhetoric designed to cheer on Republicans and build up morale before a presidential election. The right-wing media has actually weaponized its followers. The results are those black folks killed by Dylann Roof in Charleston, the women’s reproductive health doctor George Tiller, and the other victims of right-wing domestic terrorists shot dead at Sikh Temples, Jewish Community Centers, and elsewhere in the United States. And as I wrote in an earlier essay here at Salon, Republican 2016 presidential primary candidates, as well as Fox News personalities such as Bill O’Reilly, have referred to members of the human rights advocacy group Black Lives Matter as “terrorists” or the new “Ku Klux Klan.” On Monday, I wrote a piece about how a Black Lives Matter protester was beaten upon by Donald Trump supporters at a Birmingham, Alabama, rally over the weekend. Trump endorsed that thuggery and was proud that his supporters were so spirited. Adding to the grotesqueness of Donald Trump’s embrace of political violence, Robert Kiger, a fundraiser aligned with a group backing Trump, made the bizarre suggestion that he, as a white man, would be beaten up if he went into a black church. Therefore, the violent attack on a Black Lives Matter protester at Trump’s rally was expected, understood and reasonable in Kiger’s twisted, demented and profoundly racist imagination. Ultimately, when Black Lives Matter’s basic claim for equal human rights and dignity is met by racist slogans such as “All Lives Matter” -- what is just a new and more polite version of “White Power!” -- the question is no longer “if” white on black and brown racially motivated violence will take place, but rather when, and to what extent? The 2016 presidential primary season has seen Republican candidates endorse internment camps for Syrian refugees, an enemies list for Muslims, making Christianity the official state religion of the United States, establishing a Gestapo-like force to eject “illegal immigrants” from the United States, and other actions that are unworthy of what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy. Those men and women who seek the office of the president of the United States should be responsible, reflective, and intelligent individuals. While they are members of a political party, these individuals should also be ambassadors of the Common Good who first and foremost want to advance and protect the General Welfare of the United States and its citizens. To this point in the campaign, the Republican 2016 primary presidential candidates, as a group, have not shown that they are capable of honoring that obligation. The presidential primary season is not over. There is still time for the Republican Party to rise to the occasion. To that end, will the 2016 Republican primary presidential candidates denounce Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the violence of his supporters or condemn last evening’s shootings of the Black Lives Matter protesters by white supremacists? Will this crop of potential GOP presidential nominees demand that their peers, as well as the right-wing Fox News propaganda machine, tone down their collective racist, nativist, xenophobic and violence-inducing rhetoric? The answer is likely to be “no.” Instead, the Republican 2016 presidential candidates will ignore the violence and bigotry they have encouraged or instead play the “victim” of the “liberal media.” The right-wing Fox News echo chamber will also likely spin fictions of “liberal infiltrators” or “agent provocateurs” that are actually committing violence at Donald Trump rallies or shooting Black Lives Matter activists in Minneapolis. As they have repeatedly done in recent American history, movement conservatives and their media will continue to strike a match in a room full of gasoline vapor and act surprised when it explodes. This is their version of the American Way. It is an agenda that retreats from normal politics, consensus-building, and an embrace of conservatism not as a reasonable respect for traditions and standing norms, but, rather as an embrace of a radical, destructive, and reactionary behavior that leaves the United States less safe, less secure, less prosperous and weaker than it was before.
Donald Trump is immune to reality: What the GOP establishment needs to recognize—and fast
The Wall Street Journal had a report the other day about the efforts of conservative activists and operatives to knock Donald Trump out of the presidential race. It makes for some sad and panicky reading. Since the Journal is the party organ for what’s left of the northeastern Republican establishment, you can almost see the filmy coating of flop sweat staining the paper. I wrote about this two months ago, and it looks as if the GOP has no more of an idea of how to handle the increasingly xenophobic, racist Trump Wehrmacht as it steamrolls the rest of the field than it did in September. The operatives quoted in the WSJ sound as if they are using a playbook that has served them well in their careers, with talk of outrageous television ads that attract media attention and show Trump’s position as “stray[ing] from GOP orthodoxy,” despite the fact that the candidate has stayed far ahead in every poll while inveighing against some of the governing philosophies -- lowering taxes for everyone, acknowledging that income inequality is a problem for society -- that have come to animate the modern conservative movement. The obvious problem with this approach is that Trump is not a traditional candidate vulnerable to traditional opposition research and negative ads. He has made it part of his branding that he will say or do or tweet anything, no matter how vile, and then complain that any backlash is a lie propagated by political enemies intent on tearing him down. And still his supporters love him. The immunity to political history, and to reality, is his major appeal. He could spend the next debate eating puppies onstage and his supporters would cheer it as a hilarious rebuke to Muslims who consider dogs haram to the point where they won’t even pet them. This blind spot for Republican campaign operatives becomes obvious when you read the internal memo leaked to the WSJ from Trump Card LLC, a new super PAC founded with the express purpose of attacking the real estate mogul and destroying his campaign. The memo states that “The stark reality is that unless something dramatic and unconventional is done, Trump will be the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton will become president.” But Trump Card itself is the brainchild of traditional GOP operatives who have not yet displayed any unconventional ideas. And the WSJ article gives no reason to believe they will think of any. Trump Card was founded by Liz Mair, a well-connected Republican whose work running online operations for John McCain’s 2008 presidential run and advising role to Carly Fiorina’s terrible 2010 campaign for one of California’s Senate seats has apparently not precluded people from continuing to hire her for some reason. She is allied with Rick Wilson, a colorful and acerbic consultant who has been fighting the Trump wave for months, and who in September was urging rival campaigns to dip deep on oppo research against the candidate. In talking to the Journal, they are signaling to panicking GOP elites that at least someone is doing something to stop Trump. It’s the political equivalent of saying, “Don’t worry, we got this.” But what exactly have they got? Sure, some of Trump’s positions are not conservative. But this frame assumes that conservatism is a coherent political philosophy. And in today’s Republican Party, that is not the case. Instead, conservatism is a mishmash of contradictory positions that can mostly be summed up as “If Obama (or any other Democrat) is for it, we’re against it!” Mair might have some issues she can talk about with regard to their relation to traditional conservative thought – Trump’s position on eminent domain, for example – but the nuances of that debate are going to be lost to the frothing, inchoate rage cases of the Republican base who oppose any argument that sounds vaguely intellectual or acceptable to anyone connected to Washington, D.C. You know, the people who keep giving us GOP Congresses in election after election after election. This is all part of the monster the Republican Party has built over the last half-century, particularly since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, which it has harnessed for electoral success using unsustainable and outlandish rhetoric and methods. Now the monster has come to life, destroyed the lab, and lurched off into the countryside in search of small children to toss down a well while the GOP is just getting off the floor and hoping tossing a butterfly net over the creature will be enough to subdue it. I do wish Mair, Wilson and their allies luck in the effort – I have no more interest in seeing Donald Trump win the Republican nomination than they do. But I’m highly doubtful that they will be able to do much of anything beyond freezing to death on the ice. At this point, all that stops Trump from dragging out the agony of this nominating process until the GOP convention next summer is Trump himself tossing in the towel. And he looks as if he’s enjoying the attention too much to do that. The Wall Street Journal had a report the other day about the efforts of conservative activists and operatives to knock Donald Trump out of the presidential race. It makes for some sad and panicky reading. Since the Journal is the party organ for what’s left of the northeastern Republican establishment, you can almost see the filmy coating of flop sweat staining the paper. I wrote about this two months ago, and it looks as if the GOP has no more of an idea of how to handle the increasingly xenophobic, racist Trump Wehrmacht as it steamrolls the rest of the field than it did in September. The operatives quoted in the WSJ sound as if they are using a playbook that has served them well in their careers, with talk of outrageous television ads that attract media attention and show Trump’s position as “stray[ing] from GOP orthodoxy,” despite the fact that the candidate has stayed far ahead in every poll while inveighing against some of the governing philosophies -- lowering taxes for everyone, acknowledging that income inequality is a problem for society -- that have come to animate the modern conservative movement. The obvious problem with this approach is that Trump is not a traditional candidate vulnerable to traditional opposition research and negative ads. He has made it part of his branding that he will say or do or tweet anything, no matter how vile, and then complain that any backlash is a lie propagated by political enemies intent on tearing him down. And still his supporters love him. The immunity to political history, and to reality, is his major appeal. He could spend the next debate eating puppies onstage and his supporters would cheer it as a hilarious rebuke to Muslims who consider dogs haram to the point where they won’t even pet them. This blind spot for Republican campaign operatives becomes obvious when you read the internal memo leaked to the WSJ from Trump Card LLC, a new super PAC founded with the express purpose of attacking the real estate mogul and destroying his campaign. The memo states that “The stark reality is that unless something dramatic and unconventional is done, Trump will be the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton will become president.” But Trump Card itself is the brainchild of traditional GOP operatives who have not yet displayed any unconventional ideas. And the WSJ article gives no reason to believe they will think of any. Trump Card was founded by Liz Mair, a well-connected Republican whose work running online operations for John McCain’s 2008 presidential run and advising role to Carly Fiorina’s terrible 2010 campaign for one of California’s Senate seats has apparently not precluded people from continuing to hire her for some reason. She is allied with Rick Wilson, a colorful and acerbic consultant who has been fighting the Trump wave for months, and who in September was urging rival campaigns to dip deep on oppo research against the candidate. In talking to the Journal, they are signaling to panicking GOP elites that at least someone is doing something to stop Trump. It’s the political equivalent of saying, “Don’t worry, we got this.” But what exactly have they got? Sure, some of Trump’s positions are not conservative. But this frame assumes that conservatism is a coherent political philosophy. And in today’s Republican Party, that is not the case. Instead, conservatism is a mishmash of contradictory positions that can mostly be summed up as “If Obama (or any other Democrat) is for it, we’re against it!” Mair might have some issues she can talk about with regard to their relation to traditional conservative thought – Trump’s position on eminent domain, for example – but the nuances of that debate are going to be lost to the frothing, inchoate rage cases of the Republican base who oppose any argument that sounds vaguely intellectual or acceptable to anyone connected to Washington, D.C. You know, the people who keep giving us GOP Congresses in election after election after election. This is all part of the monster the Republican Party has built over the last half-century, particularly since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, which it has harnessed for electoral success using unsustainable and outlandish rhetoric and methods. Now the monster has come to life, destroyed the lab, and lurched off into the countryside in search of small children to toss down a well while the GOP is just getting off the floor and hoping tossing a butterfly net over the creature will be enough to subdue it. I do wish Mair, Wilson and their allies luck in the effort – I have no more interest in seeing Donald Trump win the Republican nomination than they do. But I’m highly doubtful that they will be able to do much of anything beyond freezing to death on the ice. At this point, all that stops Trump from dragging out the agony of this nominating process until the GOP convention next summer is Trump himself tossing in the towel. And he looks as if he’s enjoying the attention too much to do that.
Megyn Kelly confronts Ben Carson with video evidence that he’s lying about 9/11 protesters, but Carson just can’t stop lying
Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News. Monday evening on "The Kelly File," former GOP front-runner Ben Carson attempted to explain why he piggybacked on current GOP front-runner Donald Trump's lie about having seen American Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Carson told Kelly that at the campaign event, they were discussing, generally, the "inappropriate celebrating" by Muslims on 9/11, and that he was unaware of where the video in which he allegedly saw them doing so was actually shot. Which would be a valid enough excuse if it were remotely true, but as the clip Kelly played before introducing Carson amply demonstrated, it simply isn't. The question asked of him at the campaign event was, "Were American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11 when the Towers fell? Did you hear about that or see that?" "Yes," Carson said. "Can you expand on that?" the reporter asked. "There are going to be people who respond inappropriately to everything," he said. "I think that was an inappropriate response." "Did you see that happening, though?" the reporter asked. "I saw the film of it, yes," Carson said. "In New Jersey?" "Yes," Carson said. On three occasions, Carson specified that he saw, with his own eyes, video of American Muslims "inappropriately celebrating" the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Kelly pointed out that the key issue isn't whether he saw a video of Muslims celebrating, but whether the Muslims in question were American. "You admit to a lack of caution in answering that question?" Kelly asked the serial liar in the gentlest way imaginable. "Yeah," Carson said, "I thought we were just talking about the fact that Muslims were inappropriately celebrating. I didn't know that they had an agenda behind the question." By "agenda," Carson apparently means "attempting to get Ben Carson to answer a direct question," which he did, three times. However, now that he's aware they were asking him to, in Kelly's phrasing, "provide cover" for Donald Trump, Carson claims that "it really was more of a misunderstanding of what we were talking about, and me trying to make the point that celebrating [9/11] is totally inappropriate, no matter where you are." Watch the entire interview below via Fox News.
The Syrian no-fly risk: The 2016 candidates should explain why they want to chance a disaster
The big news this morning for those following the “hey we’re all spiraling towards World War III” beat is the downing of a Russian fighter jet by the Turkish air force after it crossed into Turkey’s air space overnight. Russia’s intervention in the Syrian civil war threw an added layer of chaos and confusion into the conflict, given that Russia, while ostensibly targeting everyone’s shared enemy in the Islamic State, has also been striking rebel groups who oppose Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Turkey, which backs anti-Assad rebels in Syria, has been warning Russia to stop encroaching on its airspace and cease conducting airstrikes on civilian populations nearby the Turkish border. Last night, a Russian plane violated Turkish airspace after repeated warnings and was shot down by two Turkish F-16s. The Russian pilots ejected and, according initial reports, one was killed by militants on the ground in Syria while the other was captured. Turkey is defending its actions and an emergency meeting of NATO has been called to discuss the incident. Vladimir Putin said the loss of the plane is “linked with a stab in our back delivered by terrorism accomplices.” The chances for further escalation seem remote, but it’s a tense reminder of how dangerous it is to have so many powerful countries operating on different sides of a nasty proxy conflict. As far as this incident pertains to U.S. politics, it should pose some difficult questions for the 2016 presidential candidates who favor deepened American involvement in the Syrian conflict and the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria. This is position of most of the Republican presidential contenders, with Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump being the only exceptions. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton backs the establishment of a Syrian no-fly zone, while Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley stand with the White House in rejecting the idea. The reasons to oppose a no-fly zone were many and varied before Russia started its bombing campaign. But now that Russian planes are patrolling the skies over Syria, the establishment of a no-fly zone would put the United States in the position of having to potentially fire on Russian jets. Putin and his military commanders have already demonstrated that they’re willing to be reckless and provocative when it comes to violating the airspace of NATO countries. Putting American planes in the position of policing the skies over Syria increases the chances – either by deliberate provocation or horrible accident – of a shooting war breaking out between the United States and Russia. Turkey’s downing of a Russian aircraft demonstrates how real that possibility is. Up to this point, there’s hasn’t been a ton of attention paid to the fact that so many would-be presidents are itching for the chance to potentially escalate the Syrian civil war into something much, much worse. Hillary Clinton was lightly challenged on this point at the Democratic debate in October, when O’Malley explained that a no-fly zone “could lead to an escalation because of an accident that we would deeply regret.” Rachel Maddow asked Clinton if she would shoot down a Russian jet that violated her no-fly zone, and she dodged the question as a “hypothetical,” going on to explain that imposing such a zone “doesn’t mean that you shoot at every aircraft that might violate it the first or second time.” The Republicans have, predictably, been much more hawkish in their imagined showdown with Russia over Syrian airspace. Marco Rubio’s new plan for defeating the Islamic State calls for no-fly zones and “safe zones” in Syria as part of a broader effort to topple Assad, and he writes “I would oppose Russia and Iran in their fight to prolong Assad’s brutal regime.” CNBC’s John Harwood asked Rubio what he would do if Russia violated the no-fly zone, and Rubio expressed confidence that that would never happen because “I don't think it's in the Russians' interest to engage in an armed conflict with the United States.” If it did happen, though, Rubio said “you're going to have a problem, but that would be no different than any other adversary.” Jeb Bush is similarly dismissive of the threat of escalation. “The argument is, well we'll get into the conflict with Russia,” he told Charlie Rose last month, “maybe Russia shouldn't want to be in conflict with us.” Chris Christie, in his gasbaggy way, said he’d set up the no-fly zone and then phone Putin to tell him “don’t test me.” There’s a lot of bluster and muscle-flexing going on that, as the Turkish incident shows, could have potentially catastrophic consequences. It’s not enough for a candidate to just promise that everything will work out because they’ll be “strong” or show “resolve” or whatever vacant buzzword is masquerading for foreign policy these days. They’re actively courting a disaster.
November 23, 2015
Cruz laughably rebrands himself as a moderate after Paris attacks
When you think of Republican moderates, very few – if any – come to mind. There just isn’t a lot of space for pragmatic, policy-minded conservatives in today’s GOP. There’s good news, however, and his name is Ted Cruz. Turns out Ted Cruz is really a moderate, and he’s deeply concerned about the rhetorical excesses of his fellow Republican candidates, particularly after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Indeed, a new AP report suggests that Cruz is attempting to rebrand himself in the wake of the latest attacks. His hope is to appeal to the supporters of people like Trump and Carson by emphasizing his experience and, I’m not joking, his moderation. “Tone matters,” Cruz told the AP in a recent interview. “Are there some in the Republican Party whose rhetoric is unhelpful with regard to immigration? Yes.” When pressed about his affiliation with Steve King (the Iowa Congressman who endorsed Cruz last week), who has described immigrants as disease-ridden and even “compared them to drug mules and livestock,” Cruz glibly replied: “I cannot help the language that others use. I can only help the words that come out of my mouth.” You almost have to applaud Cruz’s chutzpah here. This guy has made a career of extremism. His strategy in the Senate, from the very beginning, has been to obstruct and to use his platform to appeal to the wingnut base of the Republican Party – showing little to no interest in advancing a credible legislative agenda. And he’s mouthed as many inflammatory idiocies as anyone currently running for president. Politico was kind enough to compile some of Cruz’s rhetorical highlights in March. A similar list was assembled at the Raw Story. Here are just a few examples: “Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’” “I think President Obama is the most radical president this nation’s ever seen … And in particular, I think he is a true believer in government control of the economy and of our everyday lives. In my judgment, we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation, quite literally the battle over whether we remain a free market nation.” “You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. … The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.” “The Obama economy is a disaster, Obamacare is a train wreck, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind — the whole world is on fire.” “Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.” “It’s not our job to be social workers in Iraq and put them all on expanded Medicaid.” “I thought it was the job of a military chaplain to be insensitive to atheists.” “You look at our constitution, you look at our Bill of Rights, this is an administration [Obama] that seems bound and determined to violate every single one of our Bill of Rights…I don’t know that they’ve yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people’s homes soon.” “In my life, I have never once seen an Hispanic panhandler. In our community, it would be viewed as shameful to be out on the street begging.” Keep in mind that all of these statements were uttered before Cruz launched his presidential campaign. He hasn’t toned down the rhetoric one bit since becoming a candidate. Quite the opposite, actually. He consistently refers to his colleagues on the Hill as the “Washington Cartel.” He boasts about his climate change denialism. He suggested on the Senate floor that Speaker Boehner cut a secret deal with Leader Nancy Pelosi in order to “surrender and join with the Democrats.” He constantly pushes proposals he knows even Republicans won’t support, like threatening to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. He said “religious liberty is under threat as never before in this country,” and that he would “not surrender” on issues like same-sex marriage, no matter what the law or the general will or the Supreme Court says. And the list goes on. Ostensibly, Cruz’s latest gambit is in response to Donald Trump’s call for a Muslim database after the Paris attacks, which is surely a non-starter outside the conservative echo chamber. But Cruz’s response to Paris is scarcely better – or less extreme. He has suggested that we impose a religious test on Syrian refugees, allowing only Christians into the country. He even introduced legislation, which he knows will never pass, making this religious test official policy. That Cruz wants to suddenly shapeshift into an electable centrist is laughable on its face. He has carefully positioned himself to absorb the supporters of Trump and Carson, and that means he’s had to appeal to ideological hard-liners. There’s very little difference between Cruz and Trump and Carson. If anything, Cruz is simply a more polished rhetorician, and so he’s able to take similar positions as Trump without sounding as brash or unhinged. Substantively, though, he’s as extreme as anyone. This strategy might work in the short-term, especially now that Carson appears to be fading. But it won’t work in a general election. Cruz isn’t remotely electable, and his unfavorable ratings would be sky high against virtually any Democratic candidate. Thus, like everything else Cruz does, this tactic may work for him but it will be positively disastrous for the Republican Party.When you think of Republican moderates, very few – if any – come to mind. There just isn’t a lot of space for pragmatic, policy-minded conservatives in today’s GOP. There’s good news, however, and his name is Ted Cruz. Turns out Ted Cruz is really a moderate, and he’s deeply concerned about the rhetorical excesses of his fellow Republican candidates, particularly after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Indeed, a new AP report suggests that Cruz is attempting to rebrand himself in the wake of the latest attacks. His hope is to appeal to the supporters of people like Trump and Carson by emphasizing his experience and, I’m not joking, his moderation. “Tone matters,” Cruz told the AP in a recent interview. “Are there some in the Republican Party whose rhetoric is unhelpful with regard to immigration? Yes.” When pressed about his affiliation with Steve King (the Iowa Congressman who endorsed Cruz last week), who has described immigrants as disease-ridden and even “compared them to drug mules and livestock,” Cruz glibly replied: “I cannot help the language that others use. I can only help the words that come out of my mouth.” You almost have to applaud Cruz’s chutzpah here. This guy has made a career of extremism. His strategy in the Senate, from the very beginning, has been to obstruct and to use his platform to appeal to the wingnut base of the Republican Party – showing little to no interest in advancing a credible legislative agenda. And he’s mouthed as many inflammatory idiocies as anyone currently running for president. Politico was kind enough to compile some of Cruz’s rhetorical highlights in March. A similar list was assembled at the Raw Story. Here are just a few examples: “Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’” “I think President Obama is the most radical president this nation’s ever seen … And in particular, I think he is a true believer in government control of the economy and of our everyday lives. In my judgment, we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation, quite literally the battle over whether we remain a free market nation.” “You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. … The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.” “The Obama economy is a disaster, Obamacare is a train wreck, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind — the whole world is on fire.” “Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.” “It’s not our job to be social workers in Iraq and put them all on expanded Medicaid.” “I thought it was the job of a military chaplain to be insensitive to atheists.” “You look at our constitution, you look at our Bill of Rights, this is an administration [Obama] that seems bound and determined to violate every single one of our Bill of Rights…I don’t know that they’ve yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people’s homes soon.” “In my life, I have never once seen an Hispanic panhandler. In our community, it would be viewed as shameful to be out on the street begging.” Keep in mind that all of these statements were uttered before Cruz launched his presidential campaign. He hasn’t toned down the rhetoric one bit since becoming a candidate. Quite the opposite, actually. He consistently refers to his colleagues on the Hill as the “Washington Cartel.” He boasts about his climate change denialism. He suggested on the Senate floor that Speaker Boehner cut a secret deal with Leader Nancy Pelosi in order to “surrender and join with the Democrats.” He constantly pushes proposals he knows even Republicans won’t support, like threatening to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. He said “religious liberty is under threat as never before in this country,” and that he would “not surrender” on issues like same-sex marriage, no matter what the law or the general will or the Supreme Court says. And the list goes on. Ostensibly, Cruz’s latest gambit is in response to Donald Trump’s call for a Muslim database after the Paris attacks, which is surely a non-starter outside the conservative echo chamber. But Cruz’s response to Paris is scarcely better – or less extreme. He has suggested that we impose a religious test on Syrian refugees, allowing only Christians into the country. He even introduced legislation, which he knows will never pass, making this religious test official policy. That Cruz wants to suddenly shapeshift into an electable centrist is laughable on its face. He has carefully positioned himself to absorb the supporters of Trump and Carson, and that means he’s had to appeal to ideological hard-liners. There’s very little difference between Cruz and Trump and Carson. If anything, Cruz is simply a more polished rhetorician, and so he’s able to take similar positions as Trump without sounding as brash or unhinged. Substantively, though, he’s as extreme as anyone. This strategy might work in the short-term, especially now that Carson appears to be fading. But it won’t work in a general election. Cruz isn’t remotely electable, and his unfavorable ratings would be sky high against virtually any Democratic candidate. Thus, like everything else Cruz does, this tactic may work for him but it will be positively disastrous for the Republican Party.When you think of Republican moderates, very few – if any – come to mind. There just isn’t a lot of space for pragmatic, policy-minded conservatives in today’s GOP. There’s good news, however, and his name is Ted Cruz. Turns out Ted Cruz is really a moderate, and he’s deeply concerned about the rhetorical excesses of his fellow Republican candidates, particularly after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Indeed, a new AP report suggests that Cruz is attempting to rebrand himself in the wake of the latest attacks. His hope is to appeal to the supporters of people like Trump and Carson by emphasizing his experience and, I’m not joking, his moderation. “Tone matters,” Cruz told the AP in a recent interview. “Are there some in the Republican Party whose rhetoric is unhelpful with regard to immigration? Yes.” When pressed about his affiliation with Steve King (the Iowa Congressman who endorsed Cruz last week), who has described immigrants as disease-ridden and even “compared them to drug mules and livestock,” Cruz glibly replied: “I cannot help the language that others use. I can only help the words that come out of my mouth.” You almost have to applaud Cruz’s chutzpah here. This guy has made a career of extremism. His strategy in the Senate, from the very beginning, has been to obstruct and to use his platform to appeal to the wingnut base of the Republican Party – showing little to no interest in advancing a credible legislative agenda. And he’s mouthed as many inflammatory idiocies as anyone currently running for president. Politico was kind enough to compile some of Cruz’s rhetorical highlights in March. A similar list was assembled at the Raw Story. Here are just a few examples: “Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’” “I think President Obama is the most radical president this nation’s ever seen … And in particular, I think he is a true believer in government control of the economy and of our everyday lives. In my judgment, we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation, quite literally the battle over whether we remain a free market nation.” “You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. … The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.” “The Obama economy is a disaster, Obamacare is a train wreck, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind — the whole world is on fire.” “Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.” “It’s not our job to be social workers in Iraq and put them all on expanded Medicaid.” “I thought it was the job of a military chaplain to be insensitive to atheists.” “You look at our constitution, you look at our Bill of Rights, this is an administration [Obama] that seems bound and determined to violate every single one of our Bill of Rights…I don’t know that they’ve yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people’s homes soon.” “In my life, I have never once seen an Hispanic panhandler. In our community, it would be viewed as shameful to be out on the street begging.” Keep in mind that all of these statements were uttered before Cruz launched his presidential campaign. He hasn’t toned down the rhetoric one bit since becoming a candidate. Quite the opposite, actually. He consistently refers to his colleagues on the Hill as the “Washington Cartel.” He boasts about his climate change denialism. He suggested on the Senate floor that Speaker Boehner cut a secret deal with Leader Nancy Pelosi in order to “surrender and join with the Democrats.” He constantly pushes proposals he knows even Republicans won’t support, like threatening to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. He said “religious liberty is under threat as never before in this country,” and that he would “not surrender” on issues like same-sex marriage, no matter what the law or the general will or the Supreme Court says. And the list goes on. Ostensibly, Cruz’s latest gambit is in response to Donald Trump’s call for a Muslim database after the Paris attacks, which is surely a non-starter outside the conservative echo chamber. But Cruz’s response to Paris is scarcely better – or less extreme. He has suggested that we impose a religious test on Syrian refugees, allowing only Christians into the country. He even introduced legislation, which he knows will never pass, making this religious test official policy. That Cruz wants to suddenly shapeshift into an electable centrist is laughable on its face. He has carefully positioned himself to absorb the supporters of Trump and Carson, and that means he’s had to appeal to ideological hard-liners. There’s very little difference between Cruz and Trump and Carson. If anything, Cruz is simply a more polished rhetorician, and so he’s able to take similar positions as Trump without sounding as brash or unhinged. Substantively, though, he’s as extreme as anyone. This strategy might work in the short-term, especially now that Carson appears to be fading. But it won’t work in a general election. Cruz isn’t remotely electable, and his unfavorable ratings would be sky high against virtually any Democratic candidate. Thus, like everything else Cruz does, this tactic may work for him but it will be positively disastrous for the Republican Party.
Get ready to revisit “The River”: Springsteen’s forgotten “Party Lights” alone shows the depths of his power
Bruce Springsteen is a funny case. His early work is pretty universally considered brilliant by critics and by the fans who’ve heard it. His output after “Nebraska” divides people, though some of it very strong: Springsteen almost always brings energy, but the invention hasn’t always been there. And he got so popular – and so ubiquitous on the radio, especially around the time of “Born to Run,” full of songs no one alive during the ’80s ever needs to hear again – that he’s been easy to take for granted. To call Springsteen a major American rock musician is a bit like saying that the sun rises in the morning. But a new song from the session that became “The River” serves as a reminder of at least two things: First, there is great Springsteen stuff still sitting in the vaults in a way there probably isn’t for too many musicians of his generation. Second, if there’s even a few more songs at this level, the box set that expands on “The River” – “The Ties That Bind,” due December 4 -- could be really, really good. It could establish that 1980 LP as perhaps the greatest of all Springsteen albums. The new song, “Party Lights,” is about a young woman who got pregnant and had to give up the fast lane. “Do you miss the party lights, when you’re lying in bed at night?”, the refrain asks. It’s certainly not the only rock song about compromise and limits and moving uneasily into adulthood, but it’s hard to think of too many this good. So much rock music, from the ‘50s to to today, is about youth and freedom and ecstasy. This shows the other side of all of that. Compared to the more unified sound of the four albums that came before, “The River” is all over the place. It’s not quite “The White Album,” but it includes songs that sound like they came from another project (“Sherry Darling,” “Hungry Heart”), and many of them range emotionally even more than the songs do on his previous album, “Darkness on The Edge of Town.” (There's also real, uninhibited joy on the album as well.) That messy eclecticism is partly because of Springsteen’s complicated emotional and musical ambitions coming into the project, and the way it was put together. All of this – presumably -- will be included in the documentary that goes up on Friday on HBO. It’s directed by Thom Zimny, who also made “The Promise: The Making of Darkness on the Edge of Town” and a doc about “Born to Run.” (I’ve not seen the documentary yet, but we’re in good hands with Zimny.) Here’s how Caryn Rose described the process of making the album:
“The River” began as “The Ties That Bind,” a 10-song album recorded over the course of a year, and handed into Columbia as finished product. (The film keeps a scoreboard-like tally throughout its duration: in this case, 24 songs were recorded, 13 were rejected, 11 were sequenced.) But, as Springsteen explains, the more he listened to it, the less he thought it accomplished what he had set out to do. He’d had very lofty goals for the record, and what he wanted to write about. “I wanted to write for my age,” he says in the film. “I was inspired by things older than rock music.” He was listening to classic country–Johnny Cash, Roy Acuff–and wanting to bring some of that to what he was doing. “It had adult concerns,” Springsteen says, “and I was interested in going there.”The song “The Ties That Bind,” and the album’s grim, nostalgia-steeped title track, showed that Springsteen was getting into even deeper and darker themes than he’d written before. Things were getting complicated for the characters from his early albums, and the album is deeply marked by the recession of late 1970s. It’s easy to mock expensive reissues as just more record company greed; sometimes they are. But these four CDs and three DVDs are not only welcome they’re also – as many Americans deal with economic and personal strains not radically different from those of 35 years ago -- landing at just the right time.Bruce Springsteen is a funny case. His early work is pretty universally considered brilliant by critics and by the fans who’ve heard it. His output after “Nebraska” divides people, though some of it very strong: Springsteen almost always brings energy, but the invention hasn’t always been there. And he got so popular – and so ubiquitous on the radio, especially around the time of “Born to Run,” full of songs no one alive during the ’80s ever needs to hear again – that he’s been easy to take for granted. To call Springsteen a major American rock musician is a bit like saying that the sun rises in the morning. But a new song from the session that became “The River” serves as a reminder of at least two things: First, there is great Springsteen stuff still sitting in the vaults in a way there probably isn’t for too many musicians of his generation. Second, if there’s even a few more songs at this level, the box set that expands on “The River” – “The Ties That Bind,” due December 4 -- could be really, really good. It could establish that 1980 LP as perhaps the greatest of all Springsteen albums. The new song, “Party Lights,” is about a young woman who got pregnant and had to give up the fast lane. “Do you miss the party lights, when you’re lying in bed at night?”, the refrain asks. It’s certainly not the only rock song about compromise and limits and moving uneasily into adulthood, but it’s hard to think of too many this good. So much rock music, from the ‘50s to to today, is about youth and freedom and ecstasy. This shows the other side of all of that. Compared to the more unified sound of the four albums that came before, “The River” is all over the place. It’s not quite “The White Album,” but it includes songs that sound like they came from another project (“Sherry Darling,” “Hungry Heart”), and many of them range emotionally even more than the songs do on his previous album, “Darkness on The Edge of Town.” (There's also real, uninhibited joy on the album as well.) That messy eclecticism is partly because of Springsteen’s complicated emotional and musical ambitions coming into the project, and the way it was put together. All of this – presumably -- will be included in the documentary that goes up on Friday on HBO. It’s directed by Thom Zimny, who also made “The Promise: The Making of Darkness on the Edge of Town” and a doc about “Born to Run.” (I’ve not seen the documentary yet, but we’re in good hands with Zimny.) Here’s how Caryn Rose described the process of making the album:
“The River” began as “The Ties That Bind,” a 10-song album recorded over the course of a year, and handed into Columbia as finished product. (The film keeps a scoreboard-like tally throughout its duration: in this case, 24 songs were recorded, 13 were rejected, 11 were sequenced.) But, as Springsteen explains, the more he listened to it, the less he thought it accomplished what he had set out to do. He’d had very lofty goals for the record, and what he wanted to write about. “I wanted to write for my age,” he says in the film. “I was inspired by things older than rock music.” He was listening to classic country–Johnny Cash, Roy Acuff–and wanting to bring some of that to what he was doing. “It had adult concerns,” Springsteen says, “and I was interested in going there.”The song “The Ties That Bind,” and the album’s grim, nostalgia-steeped title track, showed that Springsteen was getting into even deeper and darker themes than he’d written before. Things were getting complicated for the characters from his early albums, and the album is deeply marked by the recession of late 1970s. It’s easy to mock expensive reissues as just more record company greed; sometimes they are. But these four CDs and three DVDs are not only welcome they’re also – as many Americans deal with economic and personal strains not radically different from those of 35 years ago -- landing at just the right time.
Don’t torture yourself on Facebook after a break-up: If you can’t block or unfriend your ex, at least you can “see less” of your ex
We all know breaking up is hard to do, and it’s become increasingly irksome in the digital age of cyber connectivity. One day you’ll feel okay -- maybe you’ve even ceased thinking about the former flame a hundred times a day (finally!) -- and then it happens. That person you used to love -- maybe you still do -- shows up in your news feed like a run in your tights, and it’s all downhill from there. At the very least it’s annoying, probably a bit sad. No one wants to see a new picture of an old lover because it catapults you back to the time when you and this person were a “we.” It also encourages us to take a peek at what they’re up to. We think it’ll be harmless to go through their page, and before you know it you’re looking at their posts from last June trying to put together the many shattered pieces of the broken relationship for closure, or something like it. Facebook understands the struggle, and is making moves to make break ups a little less shattering on social media. Last week, Facebook began testing out new features that will hide your ex from your feed following a break-up. Up until now, users have had to deal with breakups the old fashioned way — by blocking or unfriending their exes. Both options have always felt a little extreme, suggesting embitterment and resentment, when maybe you just need time off from the person while wounds are licked. While I believe it’s possible to be friends with an ex after a certain amount of time and distance has been established, I’ve learned that’s not always the case. Sometimes the road needs to remain unfollowed. Facebook’s new features allows different levels of interactions with romantic partners to help ease the transition, and it’s pretty user-friendly. When a user changes their relationship status to “single” a series of prompts will suggest you “See less of [insert name of person who broke your heart]” that will eliminate seeing that person on Facebook without blocking or unfriending them, and they won’t know you did so. None of the former flame’s posts will appear in your news feed, and their name won’t be suggested when people tag friends in photos or send messages. Additionally, you can limit posts other friends see of the former couple when they were together. According to Facebook, the new features “improve the experience when the relationship ends,” which is sad to think about because it’s like mourning someone who isn’t dead. The new breakup features speak volumes about how we engage romantically. Facebook has all but taken over the world by figuring out ways to connect people, and now they’ve had to develop methods to actively disconnect from people. It’s definitely easier to keep someone out of your mind if they’re out of sight from your newsfeed, but some prefer the abrupt cutoff, a clean break to messy relationships. According to the Pew Research Center, teens take what they deem as necessary steps to “prune” the digital details of failed relationships by unfriending or blocking the person after the breakup. The research suggests that as many as 44% of girls remove exes from social media, for myriad reasons that range from spite to indifference. “I delete the statuses and stuff,” said one high school student who participated in the study. “I’m just like this is irrelevant now.” I’m not sure whether to applaud the maturity, or pity the lack of feeling the statement suggests. Of course it’s always better to handle a breakup with grace, but to completely shut someone out so quickly seems emotionally dangerous. It’s okay to feel sad or angry after a breakup, but I think younger users are being socialized to turn off emotions as easily as they do notifications on social media. By suppressing the necessary emoting required to process a breakup and move on, issues are left unresolved and can lead to emotional volatility. We’ve all been tempted to peek at what an ex is up to, and social media makes it easy to spiral down the rabbit hole of what was and question what could have been. Whether it’s through suddenly freezing the person out of your life entirely, or more delicately limiting the access you have to each other’s lives and social media pages, it’ll always be tempting to look back on the good times with wistful nostalgia. By limiting this degree of interaction, Facebook is taking steps to help people move forward post-break up. The danger in looking back at a romance as if through a rearview mirror is that relationships may appear closer than they actually were.We all know breaking up is hard to do, and it’s become increasingly irksome in the digital age of cyber connectivity. One day you’ll feel okay -- maybe you’ve even ceased thinking about the former flame a hundred times a day (finally!) -- and then it happens. That person you used to love -- maybe you still do -- shows up in your news feed like a run in your tights, and it’s all downhill from there. At the very least it’s annoying, probably a bit sad. No one wants to see a new picture of an old lover because it catapults you back to the time when you and this person were a “we.” It also encourages us to take a peek at what they’re up to. We think it’ll be harmless to go through their page, and before you know it you’re looking at their posts from last June trying to put together the many shattered pieces of the broken relationship for closure, or something like it. Facebook understands the struggle, and is making moves to make break ups a little less shattering on social media. Last week, Facebook began testing out new features that will hide your ex from your feed following a break-up. Up until now, users have had to deal with breakups the old fashioned way — by blocking or unfriending their exes. Both options have always felt a little extreme, suggesting embitterment and resentment, when maybe you just need time off from the person while wounds are licked. While I believe it’s possible to be friends with an ex after a certain amount of time and distance has been established, I’ve learned that’s not always the case. Sometimes the road needs to remain unfollowed. Facebook’s new features allows different levels of interactions with romantic partners to help ease the transition, and it’s pretty user-friendly. When a user changes their relationship status to “single” a series of prompts will suggest you “See less of [insert name of person who broke your heart]” that will eliminate seeing that person on Facebook without blocking or unfriending them, and they won’t know you did so. None of the former flame’s posts will appear in your news feed, and their name won’t be suggested when people tag friends in photos or send messages. Additionally, you can limit posts other friends see of the former couple when they were together. According to Facebook, the new features “improve the experience when the relationship ends,” which is sad to think about because it’s like mourning someone who isn’t dead. The new breakup features speak volumes about how we engage romantically. Facebook has all but taken over the world by figuring out ways to connect people, and now they’ve had to develop methods to actively disconnect from people. It’s definitely easier to keep someone out of your mind if they’re out of sight from your newsfeed, but some prefer the abrupt cutoff, a clean break to messy relationships. According to the Pew Research Center, teens take what they deem as necessary steps to “prune” the digital details of failed relationships by unfriending or blocking the person after the breakup. The research suggests that as many as 44% of girls remove exes from social media, for myriad reasons that range from spite to indifference. “I delete the statuses and stuff,” said one high school student who participated in the study. “I’m just like this is irrelevant now.” I’m not sure whether to applaud the maturity, or pity the lack of feeling the statement suggests. Of course it’s always better to handle a breakup with grace, but to completely shut someone out so quickly seems emotionally dangerous. It’s okay to feel sad or angry after a breakup, but I think younger users are being socialized to turn off emotions as easily as they do notifications on social media. By suppressing the necessary emoting required to process a breakup and move on, issues are left unresolved and can lead to emotional volatility. We’ve all been tempted to peek at what an ex is up to, and social media makes it easy to spiral down the rabbit hole of what was and question what could have been. Whether it’s through suddenly freezing the person out of your life entirely, or more delicately limiting the access you have to each other’s lives and social media pages, it’ll always be tempting to look back on the good times with wistful nostalgia. By limiting this degree of interaction, Facebook is taking steps to help people move forward post-break up. The danger in looking back at a romance as if through a rearview mirror is that relationships may appear closer than they actually were.
Glenn Greenwald calls out CNN’s awful coverage of Paris attacks on CNN
The week before Thanksgiving saw some of the most overtly xenophobic, militaristic and fact-free media proclamations since the weeks in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Glen Greenwald appeared on CNN over the weekend to call out the cable news network for its role leading the beat of war drums. "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter asked Greenwald how he backs up his assertion that "the press is hungry for war" in the wake of the Paris attacks. In an article criticizing CNN's post-Paris attack coverage, Greenwald said "CNN has basically become state TV." "The lesson that the American media has supposedly learned after the 9/11 attack," Greenwald began, "was that allowing political and military intelligence officials to make all kinds of claims without scrutinizing and questioning and pushing them back is a really destructive thing to do." "It propagandizes the population," he argued. "It leads to things like torture, Guantanamo, the attack on Iraq based on false pretenses." "I think that CNN has actually unfortunately led the way in this," Greenwald bluntly stated about the network's coverage following the terror attacks in Paris. "I think the worst example, probably the most despicable interview we've seen in the last several years were two CNN anchors, John Vause and Isha Sesay, who told a French Muslim political activist that he and all other Muslims bear, quote, 'responsibility' for the attack in Paris because all Muslims must somehow be responsible," Greenwald explained. In that interview, both anchors confronted their Muslim guest about a collective Muslim “responsibility” in the wake of the terror attacks. Stelter pushed back, suggesting that Greenwald might be "cherry-picking" an example to prove a point, but Greenwald had quite the reel of CNN tape to wind back for Stelter. Greenwald mentioned a former CIA head's unchallenged statement that Edward Snowden deserved to be hung during an interview with CNN's Brooke Baldwin; CNN reporter, Jim Acosta's, G20 press conference question to President Obama pushing for a war with "these bastards"; CIA chief John Brennan's repeated false claims on CNN that the terror attacks were planned through encrypted techniques as a result of Snowden's NSA leaks; and what Greenwald described as Christiane Amanpour's repeated on-air demands that President Obama send ground troops into Syria. "I think what Jim did is totally appropriate," Greenwald told Stelter. "I think it's great that Christiane Amanpour can go on CNN all the time and ... expresses whatever opinions she wants. That to me is journalism, is criticizing politicians." "That's why Elise Labott did nothing wrong as well," Greenwald said, contrasting the network's treatment of its global affairs correspondent, suspended for tweeting her disapproval of the House vote to severely limit the number of Syrian refugees relocated to the U.S. last week. "The fact that CNN singled her out and punished her doesn't show the objectivity as required of CNN reporters. It shows that when you want more war, when you want to stigmatize Muslims, but defending Muslims is not allowed. I think that's what signals it sent." Watch Greenwald call out CNN on CNN below:
The universal power of empathy: The science behind why everyone loves Adele
Adele’s first album in four years is set to break records during its first week in release. At a time when “people don’t buy albums,” 25 is on track to sell at least 2.5 million copies—and might even crack 3 million. For reference, Justin Bieber’s "Purpose" (the year’s previous biggest debut) sold 522,000 units in a week, while Adele pushed 900,000 copies of "25" in a day. The all-time-best sales week belongs to *NSYNC’s "No Strings Attached," which boasts an untouched 2.41 million copies 14 years ago. The universal adoration of Adele has brought together the kinds of people who could never normally agree on anything, so much so that this weekend’s "Saturday Night Live" cheekily suggested that it could keep your family together—or at least from squabbling—during Thanksgiving. While Adele’s appeal amongst older women has long been cited as the key to her success, science shows that our love of pop music’s most transcendently somber chanteuse is hard-wired into our DNA. Adele demonstrates not only the power of sad music but of an emotion even greater than the blues: empathy. Although Aristotle once suggested that great art offers the pull of catharsis—purging us of unwanted emotions—recent research has offered a different perspective of how our brains respond to sad music. In the New York Times, researchers Ai Kawakami discussed his team’s findings (published in the Frontiers in Psychology journal) in 2013 that music imbued with heartache, tragedy, and suffering evokes different feelings in the listener. Instead of feeling exactly what Sinead O’Connor feels when we listen to “Nothing Compares 2 U,” Kakawami found that the song evokes “vicarious emotions.” What exactly does that mean to feel vicariously? “Here, there is no object or situation that induces emotion directly, as in regular life,” Kawakami writes. “Instead, the vicarious emotions are free from the essential unpleasantness of their genuine counterparts, while still drawing force from the similarity between the two.” That definition might seem to be obtuse, but there’s a simpler one. Vicarious emotion is strikingly similar to how philosopher and economist Adam Smith defined empathy—which he called “fellow feeling”—in his essay, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments": “changing places in fancy with the sufferer.” Indeed, another study from the Free University of Berlin’s Liila Taruffi and Stefan Koelsch found that people who are drawn to, experience, and identify with the emotions of others have a strong connection to sad music. That process is deeply rooted in the process of evolution itself. Like “father of the free market” primatologist Frans de Waal (known for his groundbreaking work on chimpanzee social dynamics) argued, feeling what others feel was a selected genetic trait that helped humans survive in a harsh environment. “First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring,” de Waal wrote. “Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest.” These same traits can be witnessed in other species. In a groundbreaking 1964 experiment published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Jules H. Masserman helped pioneer the idea of altruism in primates. His team of researchers found that rhesus monkeys given a choice of pulling a chain to feed themselves and shocking another money or going hungry would rather starve themselves than see a member of their in-group harmed. Primates can even feel empathy for those outside their own species: In 1923, Robert Yerkes psychology Robert Yerkes reported that one of the bonobos he worked with grew a particular attachment to an ailing chimp. However, there’s something uniquely human about our ability to understand others’ pain. As de Waal writes, “empathy is second nature to us, so much so that anyone devoid of it strikes us as dangerous or mentally ill,” and even the word “human” is inextricably bound to empathy. A favorite moment from John Hughes’ "Sixteen Candles" comes to mind. After spilling all her guts about the guy she likes to Farmer Ted (Anthony Michael Hall), Samantha (Molly Ringwald) is impressed about his willingness to lend an ear. “It's really human of you to listen to all my bullshit,” she responds. Her definition of personhood here, thus, hinges on empathy; her humanity requires engagement and understanding. If empathy connects us to our environment and those around us—as the University of Virginia’s James Coan suggests, it’s the building block of friendship—it’s also indicative of how we process music. The chemicals our bodies release when we listen to a sad song, oxytocin and prolactin, are the hormones “associated with social bonding and nurturance.” As Dr. Krystyne I. Batcho writes in Psychology Today, artists like Adele can “[enhance] a sense of social connectedness or bonding”—whether that’s in a longing for the past or in an overwhelming gratitude for the present. These dichotomies envelop the dual meanings of nostalgia, a theme that Adele’s "25" explores beautifully in a set of 11 perfectly-crafted torch songs. If Batcho says that “nostalgia can remind us of who we once were, how we overcame challenges in the past, and who we are in terms of our relationships to others,” Adele’s reminiscence of a previous relationship on “Hello” is a textbook example of the power of empathy: By looking back on the lessons of a failed relationship, the song offers a beautiful allegory for self-love in the present. “Send My Love (To Your New Lover)” only underscores that point: Enjoyment of the present entails coming to terms with your past. These ideas have always lurked in Adele’s music, even at its most tragic. “Someone Like You” is the anti-Alanis Morrisette: When Adele turns up uninvited, she hopes not to confront you with your ghosts but face them—and move on. Her music has often been billed as depressing, but there’s a quiet strength here that keeps us coming back (and bringing all our friends to listen to Adele with us). Adele’s music is a reminder of our centuries-long journey to become human—whether that’s as apes crawling from the primordial ooze or in staying connected to the world around us—as well as the beauty of that struggle. In living vicariously through Adele’s music, we can be reminded of what it means to live.
