Trump can't stop distorting what London's mayor says about terrorism. There's a reason.

Twice, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has spoken out after a terror incident. Twice, his statements provoked a raging counterattack from Donald Trump and those around him.

Photo by Odd Andersen/Getty Images.

In both cases, Trump and his team have taken public umbrage at Khan's approach to managing his constituents' response to terror — often by construing the mayor's words to mean something other than what he clearly intended them to mean.


Here's what the mayor said the day after terror attacks in London that killed seven people and injured four dozen:

(emphasis added)

"My message to Londoners and visitors to our great city is to be calm and vigilant today. You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world. You saw last night as a consequence of our planning, our preparation, the rehearsals that take place, the swift response from the emergency services tackling the terrorists and also helping the injured."

Photo by Daniel Leal-Olivas/Getty Images.

Here's how President Trump framed that comment:

And, again later, after numerous commentators and media outlets noted that Trump had taken Khan's remarks out of context:

Trump's tweets are similar to his team's reaction to the London mayor's statement after an explosion in New York that injured 29 people in September 2016.

Here's what Khan said about that incident (emphasis added):

"Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job.

We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives."

Here's how the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., framed those comments on Twitter ... when he found out about them six months later:

Why do the Trumps insist on taking Sadiq Khan's statements out of context?

Khan is, in some ways, a natural foil for the president. He's cosmopolitan, erudite, and perhaps most tellingly, Muslim. But it's hard to argue that anything he said in either case is false — or even opposed to Trump's own view of terror.

Photo by Justin Tallis/Getty Images.

The assertion that the threat of terrorism is an endemic risk to life in a global city is self-evidently true, as attacks on New York, London, Mumbai, Madrid, Paris, Brussels, and more have demonstrated. In calling on residents to support law enforcement and report unusual activity, Khan is echoing a major theme of Trump's campaign.

Yet, in both cases, when Khan said, "Stay calm," Trump and his team accused him of saying, in effect, "Terrorism is no big deal."

Trump's entire policy agenda depends on thinking terrorism is a huge, world-swallowing "big deal" — and Khan's pleas for calm vigilance are a threat to that mindset.

A constant drumbeat of anti-terror agitating from elected officials can cause generate something like a permanent fight-or-flight response in the mind, according to psychologists who have studied the effect of terrorism on the human brain

"We obsess and then develop habits and rituals to ward off bad things. That can be watching TV over and over again to get more information, reading all we can in the media, and all of this is focused on warding off harm," Eric Hollander, clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told CNN in a 2016 interview.

In other words, the more political leaders and media outlets hype the threat of terror, the more citizens fear it in a way that is out of proportion to the actual danger it poses.

We can't have a rational discussion about the appropriate response to terror if we're scared to death.

When political leaders ratchet down the rhetoric, allowing citizens to take a step back and consider the evidence — i.e., one is far less likely to die in a terror attack perpetrated by foreign terrorists than in a car crash, by choking, or even a being struck by lightning — from a safe distance, it's easier to generate a rational approach to the problem.

On the other hand, a scared populace can be more easily persuaded to make policy from the gut, regardless of evidence.

An anxious public is more likely to support right-wing leadership, draconian anti-terror actions, and restrictive immigration policies, if those leaders tie security to the presence of new arrivals, explained political scientists Bethany Albertson and Shana Gadarian in The Washington Post.

When fear rules the debate around terrorism, Trump benefits.

That very well may be why Khan's persistent calls for caution and reason provoke such strong reactions from Trump.

It might also be why he insists on framing the mayor's comments in the least generous terms.

The rest of us, however, could benefit from Khan's advice.

Keep calm, remain alert, and talk to each other.

Photo by Niklas Halle'n/Getty Images.

Terror is a complex problem requiring a complex approach. Should it come from law enforcement? The military? Diplomacy? A combination? How scared should we be? What's a proportionate amount of mental energy to expend on worrying about it?

Regardless of what the solution is, we can really only discuss it if we're not constantly terrified.

That might not be what Trump wants.

But with the threat mounting, it's what the world needs — perhaps now more than ever.

More

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture