First Chris Matthews had on E.J. Dionne and Susan Milligan, and barely let Susan get in a word in edgewise:
And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
And she did it again, the next night:
And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
As the Catholic Church continues to embarrass itself on Birth Control...
Sarah Kliff, working for Ezra Klein's Wonkbook, published this handy-dandy fact check on the President's new regulations regarding Health Insurance Companies...note: Health Insurance Companies...having to cover contraception under the Affordable Care act.
Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.
Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)
From today's Washington Post:
Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.
Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)
From today's Washington Post:
How did this all start?
The health reform law requires that insurance companies cover preventive services for women without any co-pay beginning this summer. It did not, however, specify what services to cover — that was left to the Obama administration. With guidance from the Institute of Medicine on the issue, Health and Human Services published a regulation on Aug. 1, 2011 that included birth control as part of the preventive package. That regulation also had a conscience clause, which allows religious employers who object to birth control — and also primarily employ those of their own religion — to be exempt from the requirement. That would allow churches to opt out of the new requirement.
What’s the fight about now?
Some religious leaders say that the exemption wasn’t wide enough: That the Obama administration should allow all faith-based employers regardless of who they employ, to opt out of the new requirement if they object to contraceptives. This wider definition would exempt, among others, Catholic hospitals. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied aggressively for this wider conscience clause, as have a number of prominent Catholics who supported the health reform law. But in final regulations last month, the Obama administration did not expand the exemption.
Let’s say the Obama administration had expanded the conscience clause. Would that allow Catholic hospitals not to provide birth control to their patients?
No, it would not. This regulation only applies to the health insurance that a hospital, charity or other employer provides for its employees. It does not regulate the care that a Catholic charity provides to its patients. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote recently in a USA Today op-ed, “our rule has no effect on the long-standing conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception.”
What happens next?
Two Catholic universities have already filed lawsuits challenging the mandated coverage of contraceptives as a violation of religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment. The Catholic bishops are also looking to file a similar challenge, and some observers expect these challenges could wind their way up to the Supreme Court.
The new rule is starting to play a political role, too, in the 2012 election. Republican candidates have come out against the contraceptive requirement. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted it as “a direct assault of freedom of religion.” The Obama campaign and its allies have repeatedly defended the new requirement, attacking the Republican field as anti-contraceptives.
How have contraceptive mandates been handled previously?
Twenty-eight states currently require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, although two exclude emergency contraceptives from that mandate.
Nine states do not have conscience clause. Four states have what the Guttmacher Institute describes as “narrow” exemptions, similar to the federal one, which allows churches and other institutions that primarily employ those of their own religion to opt out. Seven states have “broader” exemptions that cover other religious institutions, but not hospitals. Then eight states have “expansive” conscience clauses that allow at least some hospitals not to provide contraceptive coverage.
What about if you get health care through your employer?
Approximately 90 percent of employer-based insurance plans cover contraceptives, according to the Guttmacher Institute, although many may charge co-pays for birth control, which the health reform law will eliminate.
Matt Lauer's pre-Super Bowl Interview with the President (VIDEO)
...or, what I could find of it.
The President's Super-Bowl prediction (or lack of), and Iran & Israel:
On Iran's Nuclear Program, the Economy and 2012:
Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous. He is aware the President has a day job, right? And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)
And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?
Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:
The President's Super-Bowl prediction (or lack of), and Iran & Israel:
On Iran's Nuclear Program, the Economy and 2012:
Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous. He is aware the President has a day job, right? And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)
And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?
Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:
Did Clint Eastwood just make a campaign ad for the President? (VIDEO)
First off, brilliant ad. But then Chrysler has been making brilliant stuff since their comeback.
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
[A]s befitting a car commercial, is that it focuses on the revitalization of Detroit as a template for pushing the country forward. This echoes language the president used in his State of the Union last month:
Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
Not only should you expect to hear more like this as the year continues, but don’t be surprised if the Obama campaign’s positive advertisements look and sound a lot like Chrysler’s.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Michelle Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show (VIDEO)
Part 1 (Michelle saying the President's goregous. President's singing. Mitt's singing):
Just an hour of computer time for Sasha and Malia? Dang.
Part 2 (Malia's cellphone, Politics, and knocking out Al Roker):
Part 3 (Michelle's Book, Let's Move, Jay's vegetable challenge):
Just an hour of computer time for Sasha and Malia? Dang.
Part 2 (Malia's cellphone, Politics, and knocking out Al Roker):
Part 3 (Michelle's Book, Let's Move, Jay's vegetable challenge):
Oh, by the way the President Announces Launch of African Americans for Obama (VIDEO)
Become a "Congregation Captain?" Why...that doesn't sound anti-Christian at all, Newt.
Race Baiting and still more Willing Republicans who go along with it... (VIDEO)
I'm not sure I was with Rachel on this one, but I sure as hell wasn't with Rick Tyler...
I love how Lawrence O'Donnell ended the discussion: Name the program that Republicans passed that helped African-Americans out of poverty.
It wasn't quite crickets, but...given what Rick Tyler vomited up, it was damn close.
Also, I'm getting sick of Republicans trying to pretend racial hostility to this President isn't a dynamic worming its way through this election. Tyler spent quite a deal of time saying that it was MSNBC who brought it up.
Tyler's answer was similar to Kennedy's appearance on the Bill Maher show last week saying that the Brewer-Obama confrontation was about sexism, not racism.
(Editor's note: Of course, I can't find any video to back that claim up. The closest I could find is below, where you can see Kennedy getting revved up.)
Despite the lack of video, Kennedy falls into the Willing category, as in willing to provide cover to enable racist behavior.
Anyway, back to the main subject. That all being said, I wasn't with Rachel on this one. I hate giving anyone a pass, but what Gingrich but it didn't make me cringe. I kinda stared at him and went "Really? That's what you're going with?"
Remember, I'm an expert at what offends African-Americans, given that I'm...you know...African-American.
You want to see what did offend me? The "jig" comment dropped by Jennifer, a questioner on the Google Hangout earlier this week. It was replayed on the Daily Show (wait till about 1:59 into the video):
That made me cringe.
I love how Lawrence O'Donnell ended the discussion: Name the program that Republicans passed that helped African-Americans out of poverty.
It wasn't quite crickets, but...given what Rick Tyler vomited up, it was damn close.
Also, I'm getting sick of Republicans trying to pretend racial hostility to this President isn't a dynamic worming its way through this election. Tyler spent quite a deal of time saying that it was MSNBC who brought it up.
Tyler's answer was similar to Kennedy's appearance on the Bill Maher show last week saying that the Brewer-Obama confrontation was about sexism, not racism.
(Editor's note: Of course, I can't find any video to back that claim up. The closest I could find is below, where you can see Kennedy getting revved up.)
Despite the lack of video, Kennedy falls into the Willing category, as in willing to provide cover to enable racist behavior.
Anyway, back to the main subject. That all being said, I wasn't with Rachel on this one. I hate giving anyone a pass, but what Gingrich but it didn't make me cringe. I kinda stared at him and went "Really? That's what you're going with?"
Remember, I'm an expert at what offends African-Americans, given that I'm...you know...African-American.
You want to see what did offend me? The "jig" comment dropped by Jennifer, a questioner on the Google Hangout earlier this week. It was replayed on the Daily Show (wait till about 1:59 into the video):
That made me cringe.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
And here we go again: Wisconsin, then Indiana, and now Arizona...
I wish I could be a little more sympathetic, but...do you see know what happens when you vote Republican, or "send the President a message" or sit on your hands on Election Day? You get this:
Look at that last paragraph, Arizona. You were pissed off about the Economy, yet the Electeds have chosen only to hear an anti-Labor message from your Vote in November of 2010.
The question is, are you going to let them get away with it?
With a sweeping series of bills introduced Monday night in the state Senate, Republicans in Arizona hoped to make Wisconsin’s battle against public unions last year look like a lightweight sparring match.
The bills include a total ban on collective bargaining for Arizona’s public employees, including at the city and county levels. The move would outpace even the tough bargaining restrictions enacted in Wisconsin in 2011 that led to massive union protests and a Democratic effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
“At first glance, it looks like an all out assault on the right of workers to organize,” Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (D) told TPM on Tuesday. “And to me, that’s a serious problem.”
The bills were crafted with the help of the Goldwater Institute, a powerful conservative think tank in Phoenix that flew Walker to the state for an event in November. Nick Dranias, director of the institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, told TPM he sees Walker as a “hero” but that Wisconsin’s laws were “modest” compared to Arizona’s measures.
“In Arizona, we believe that the political will exists to do even more comprehensive reform,” Dranias said. “The environment, the climate that we face in Arizona is much more receptive to these kinds of reforms than Wisconsin is.”
Look at that last paragraph, Arizona. You were pissed off about the Economy, yet the Electeds have chosen only to hear an anti-Labor message from your Vote in November of 2010.
The question is, are you going to let them get away with it?
AARP acts like it doesn't know that's the exact purpose of VA's Voter I.D. Law
From Think Progress:
Virginia is joining the growing number of states attempting to pass a voter ID bill that could jeopardize the voting rights of millions of minorities, low-income voters, students, and seniors. Today, the AARP — a non-partisan non-profit organization for senior citizens — warned state GOP lawmakers that their voter ID bill could disenfranchise a great number of Virginia’s seniors. Noting that “a good percentage — about 18 percent of people 65 and older” don’t have a photo ID, the non-profit said the bill “could mean a lot of seniors will choose to stay home.” Though the bill allows for a provisional ballot if the voter lacks ID, the AARP says the bill “sends a negative message to a powerful block of voters.” “Older people want to stay connected. That is one of their greatest privileges is to be able to vote. We want them to know their vote counts and to encourage them to get to the polls,” stated AARP. Virginia General Assembly’s black caucus is holding a protect the vote rally today in opposition as well.
Ta-Neishi Coates: "MCs act like they don't know..."
Jonathan Chait:
And, as Ta-Neishi reminded us...
And let's not forget Baltimore, 2010:
The idea that Romney can "think on his feet," and that Obama is all "flash," expresses a common right-wing trope that Obama is actually an idiot: a charismatic speaker but helpless when not reading from prepared text. That is the basis for the GOP's otherwise inscrutable obsession with TelePrompTer jokes - the TelePrompTer is an extremely common political tool, but many conservatives have come to believe that Obama would be helpless without it. That belief accounts for a major portion of Gingrich's appeal -- he has painted an appealing picture of himself exposing the stammering dope in a lengthy series of debates. Among other problems, this fantasy ignores the actual history of Obama's debate performances ...
And, as Ta-Neishi reminded us...
And let's not forget Baltimore, 2010:
What Colin Powell was in 2008, will Charlie Crist be in 2012?
From Politico:
Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday he wouldn’t rule out voting for President Barack Obama in November.
Crist — who was a member of the Republican party until 2010 and is now a registered independent — said in interviews with MSNBC and CNN that he would “consider” casting his ballot for Obama on election day.
“Consider? Sure, I would consider that,” Crist said on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.” “I really think he’s sincere and genuine. I think we have a lot time, a lot of issues to talk about, but I think, in his heart, he’s trying to do what’s right for the country overall.”
And in an interview with CNN, Crist pointed to the improving economy as a reason he might vote for Obama in November.
Monday, January 30, 2012
I suppose "dogsagainstromney.com" was inevitable at some point...
Great catch by Andrew Sullivan this morning.
The Official Site of Dogs Against Romney(TM) founded 2007. Hi, I'm Rusty. Mitt Romney is mean to dogs. Help me get my message out about the Mitt Romney dog on roof story. Putting a dog on the car roof is abuse. Remember Crate-Gate.
Friday, January 27, 2012
It turns out, Mittens is so rich, he's actually FORGOTTEN how much money he has.
Dang, Rachel had a busy night tonight. Didn't she?
Don't worry about the Space suit. You know it was all about Newt's Moon Base before this clip, right?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Don't worry about the Space suit. You know it was all about Newt's Moon Base before this clip, right?
Wow. Apparently, Mittens believes in "Pray Away the Gay"... (VIDEO)
Uhhh, this is gonna be a problem for Mittens...
MSNBC: The unfortunately slow death of the Birther Movement (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Elizabeth Warren (VIDEO)
President Obama discusses College Affordability in Ann Arbor, Michigan (VIDEO)
I'll resist making any commentary...
...but I expect multiple visits to Columbus, OH in compensation.
UPDATE: 2:59pm, Pacific: Ugh. Denard Robinson was in the House? Well, Coach Meyer will be waitin' for him come the 2012 Season. GO BUCKEYES!!!
...but I expect multiple visits to Columbus, OH in compensation.
UPDATE: 2:59pm, Pacific: Ugh. Denard Robinson was in the House? Well, Coach Meyer will be waitin' for him come the 2012 Season. GO BUCKEYES!!!
Capping off a busy week in GOP racism: Ron Paul. Willing AND Stupid?
Here we go...again. First Jenny Sanford, then Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Jan Brewer, and certainly not forgetting Newt "Food Stamps" Gingrich...
Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:
And...
And...
No, I suppose you wouldn't.
Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:
Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):
Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":
Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds. He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.
Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.
Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.
Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:
Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
And...
In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.
“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.
The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.
And...
Hathway, the former Ron Paul & Associates secretary, said: “We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world. . . . I never had one complaint’’ about the content.
No, I suppose you wouldn't.
Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:
I cannot and will not defend the newsletters. And Paul's apparent lies about his involvement make the matter worse. And I don't think Paul is the "best vehicle" for advancing the ideas TNC cites. He's a very flawed vehicle, like most politicians and human beings. And I corrected immediately the record on the MLK holiday.
But when Paul has said what he has said in these debates, when he has walked into the lion's den of a GOP primary and attacked the criminal justice system for racial bias, lacerated the war on drugs, and cut to the core of the delusions behind American global aggression, he deserves to be judged on his recent history as well as his increasingly distant past. His message that more liberty makes diversity more possible is a vital one.
Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?
I acknowledge this newsletter incident is ugly, indefensible and, above all, cynical. I don't think it is all that matters in the remarkable late career of congressman Paul. And that hunting for heretics rather than celebrating converts is a losing political strategy.
Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):
If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.
What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.
Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":
Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?
Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds. He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.
Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.
Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Chris Christie seems to be a willing racist (VIDEO)
I'll listen to Christie the moment he explains how my Father (who would've been alive at the time of this bull@#$% idea) would have been allowed to vote in said referendum.
Oh, that's right. The white people of the South would've had to grant him his rights, voluntarily.
Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver of New Jersey crushed the Governor better than I could:
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Homophobe...and willing to be a racist piece of @#$%.
Oh, that's right. The white people of the South would've had to grant him his rights, voluntarily.
Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver of New Jersey crushed the Governor better than I could:
In a comment related to his call for a voter referendum on the proposal to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie said Wednesday, “People would have been happy to have referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”
The governor, who on Tuesday called for a referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot that would ask voters to decide if the state should legalize same-sex marriage, also said he will veto the Democratic legislation to allow it when the proposal reaches his desk.
The comment that the civil rights movement of the 1960s could have been settled through a national or southern states voter referendum stunned Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver (D-Essex), who became the first African-American woman to head the lower house in 2010.
“Gov. Christie better sit down with some of New Jersey’s great teachers for a history lesson, because his puzzling comment shows a complete misunderstanding about the civil rights movement,” Oliver said. “It’s impossible to ever conceive that a referendum on civil rights in the South would have been successful and brought justice to minorities. It’s unfathomable to even suggest a referendum would have been the better course.
“Governor – people were fighting and dying in the streets of the South for a reason,” the Assemblywoman said. “They were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It look legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Homophobe...and willing to be a racist piece of @#$%.
Jan Brewer would fall into the Stupid category... (VIDEO)
Rememeber, your choices are Blind, Willing or Stupid. And we're going with stupid...
From KHPO:
Well...maybe not.
Seriously, the GOP has a major race problem on its hands. Racism is a very good way to win primaries, but also a good way to lose elections.
From KHPO:
Brewer said their heated exchange Wednesday started on the tarmac with a handwritten letter she gave the president inviting him to come back to Arizona to have lunch with her and make a visit with her to the border.
She said that's when he started criticizing her on how she portrayed him in her recent book.
"I felt a little bit threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had, because I was there to welcome him," she said.
The governor describes the final part of their exchange Wednesday as disrespectful towards her.
"I believe that when we were in the conversation, I was in the middle of a sentence and he walked away," Brewer said.
Well...maybe not.
Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, Ariz., declined to say exactly what he heard Obama and Brewer talk about during their now-infamous tiff next to Air Force One.
But the mayor said he was standing right next to the governor when the exchange took place and Obama didn’t seem to be in any kind of hurry to leave.
“There was no sense that he was running to or from anything,” Smith told TPM. In fact, he said, the president stayed and had a pleasant conversation with Smith, who’s a Republican, and Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat.
It was “just the four of us,” Smith said. “Mayor Stanton and I had a decent talk with him.”
The portrayal of a calm, friendly president seems to at least partly contradict what Brewer has said about the encounter in numerous interviews since Wednesday afternoon.
Seriously, the GOP has a major race problem on its hands. Racism is a very good way to win primaries, but also a good way to lose elections.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Daily Show's complete extended interview with Elizabeth Warren (VIDEO)
"The Pats are gonna spank the Giants. I'm sorry, it's just reality..."
Right there, Warren avoided any comparisons to Martha Coaxley. And thank goodness for that...
Part 1:
Part 2:
Right there, Warren avoided any comparisons to Martha Coaxley. And thank goodness for that...
Part 1:
Part 2:
"I will recover and return..."(VIDEO)
Even Boehner was gracious. (Even teared up a little from what I can tell, toward the end).
"Score another one for U.S. Special Operations..." (VIDEO)
Once again, Navy SEALS...absolutely BADASS!
You're welcome, Denmark!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
You're welcome, Denmark!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Rick Santorum: Blind, Stupid and Willing... (VIDEO)
Here we go again.
If you want to know what I think about this, allow me to modify [somewhat] my blog post where I attacked Jenny Sanford for doing this exact same thing.
When you provide cover for the racism of others, as [Rick Santorum] does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. [Rick Santorum] isnotstupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country, [but Santorum may be an exception.]
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Sunday, January 22, 2012
I respect the heck out of @chucktodd, he needs to understand why we trust The Daily Show more than Cable News... (VIDEO)
Is it just possible that after the Bush years, after watching the media be willing accomplices in the march to war, after watching Editorial decisions being made with the stockholders more in mind than the audience, after watching how a Reporters access matters more to them than the story they're trying to tell me, is it any wonder why we trust the Daily Show more than we do most reporters?
I wish Chuck Todd got it, because this is some weak-ass sauce:
Chuck, it's simple. It's a matter of trust, and a lot of your colleagues (especially your colleagues at Fox News) have made it very hard to trust Journalism. We see too much manipulation of journalists, and journalist who are too-willing-to-be manipulated.
I am learning more from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report than I am from the Nightly News. I am getting more actual NEWS CONTENT from them. They're not wasting my time. They're not just giving me a giggle. They are educating me, and they're doing a better job than Free Broadcast TV News, and they're doing a HELL of a lot better than Cable News.
I wish Chuck Todd got it, because this is some weak-ass sauce:
Chuck, it's simple. It's a matter of trust, and a lot of your colleagues (especially your colleagues at Fox News) have made it very hard to trust Journalism. We see too much manipulation of journalists, and journalist who are too-willing-to-be manipulated.
I am learning more from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report than I am from the Nightly News. I am getting more actual NEWS CONTENT from them. They're not wasting my time. They're not just giving me a giggle. They are educating me, and they're doing a better job than Free Broadcast TV News, and they're doing a HELL of a lot better than Cable News.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Gingrich and Santorum are not the only racists in the GOP (Jenny Sanford anyone?) (VIDEO)
I watched this interview with Jenny Sanford, curious about what she had to say about Newt Gingrich. Now I’m never going to be curious about anything she has to say ever again.
There’s no other way to put this, but Jenny Sanford is a racist. I wish she wasn’t, but there it is. She’s a Southern Belle, who herself is the privileged daughter of other Southern Belles, who apparently thinks African-Americans like me been making all this Racism stuff up these last three hundred and fifty years.
To have Chris Matthews show her the video tape of Newt Gingrich actually being thanked for "putting Juan Williams in his place", and to have her say there was nothing wrong with that, that all this dog-whistle talk is a media fabrication, speaks volumes for her lack of character.
Actually, no it doesn’t. It tells me, plainly and simply, she’s a racist.
The big problem that exists in America today is that too many (mostly White) Americans think that one only meets the definition of racism if you're buring a cross on someone's lawn, and doing it when you're wearing a sheet over your head.
Not so. I see evidence of racism in small ways in everyday life, committed by people who if asked, even quiet rooms where such things are discussed, will insist that they're not racist.
But clutch your bag a little tighter in the elevator when a black man walks in? Follow around young black men in the store? Assume because of my Skin Color that I can't qualify for credit or a loan? These are judgments and actions being taken on the basis of my skin color.
And when you provide cover for the racism of others, as Jenny Sanford does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. Jenny Sanford is not stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country.
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Now, if you are a White Republican, and have a problem with what I'm saying. What can I say, but @#$^ off. I'm African-American. I know what racism is, you don't. I know what the dog-whistles sound like, you don't.
I get to judge what offends me, you don't.
You want another Dog Whistle? James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly (rightly) took Newt to task for his racial coding. Here's what an angry reader sent to him:
See that? Same mentality as Jenny Sanford.
And yes, that was racist, too.
Fallows promptly ripped the reader to shreds:
And what am I supposed to think of people who deny that what Newt is doing is being done on purpose?
Now the good news is that people get it. People (mostly notably, a lot of White people, like Fallows) are calling this stuff for what it is. Nothing makes me happier.
But clearly, Newt Gingrich, Rick "Blah People" Santorum, Jenny Sanford and this douchebag who wrote in to Fallows are not the only racists in the Republican Party or Conservative set. My problem is that within the party of Lincoln, the cancer is growing.
(By the way, you did notice we haven't even touched on the racist crap Ron Paul's done, right?)
I have known and continue to know a lot of Republicans in my life. The Republicans I know are primarily Eisenhower-style, Small Government, Fiscally Conservative, yet Socially Liberal types. Yes, they are out there...
...but they’re also out there providing cover for the racists that are out there, and now it is their silence that is starting to speak volumes to me.
You want more examples? How about this?
Or this from December of 2011?
Okay, so maybe that last one wasn't code so much.
Don't joke with us. We know the codes. Stop using them, or get called out for what you really are.
There’s no other way to put this, but Jenny Sanford is a racist. I wish she wasn’t, but there it is. She’s a Southern Belle, who herself is the privileged daughter of other Southern Belles, who apparently thinks African-Americans like me been making all this Racism stuff up these last three hundred and fifty years.
To have Chris Matthews show her the video tape of Newt Gingrich actually being thanked for "putting Juan Williams in his place", and to have her say there was nothing wrong with that, that all this dog-whistle talk is a media fabrication, speaks volumes for her lack of character.
Actually, no it doesn’t. It tells me, plainly and simply, she’s a racist.
The big problem that exists in America today is that too many (mostly White) Americans think that one only meets the definition of racism if you're buring a cross on someone's lawn, and doing it when you're wearing a sheet over your head.
Not so. I see evidence of racism in small ways in everyday life, committed by people who if asked, even quiet rooms where such things are discussed, will insist that they're not racist.
But clutch your bag a little tighter in the elevator when a black man walks in? Follow around young black men in the store? Assume because of my Skin Color that I can't qualify for credit or a loan? These are judgments and actions being taken on the basis of my skin color.
And when you provide cover for the racism of others, as Jenny Sanford does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. Jenny Sanford is not stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country.
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Now, if you are a White Republican, and have a problem with what I'm saying. What can I say, but @#$^ off. I'm African-American. I know what racism is, you don't. I know what the dog-whistles sound like, you don't.
I get to judge what offends me, you don't.
You want another Dog Whistle? James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly (rightly) took Newt to task for his racial coding. Here's what an angry reader sent to him:
Many times you present your perspective fairly, but in today's footnote comments about the South Carolina debate in your Final on Huntsman blog posting, one of two things is apparent. Neither alternative reflects well upon you.
You cited as a "dog whistle" Newt Gingrich's comment that Obama is "the food stamp President". By calling that a dog whistle you are dog whistling to your own constituencies about how terrible and racist those evil Republicans are.
You should certainly be aware that Newt Gingrich and other Republican candidates have many times in recent months made the argument that President Obama's administration has resulted in record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps, while record numbers of Americans are unable to find jobs. They then promise policies that will result in more jobs and fewer people needing food stamps as employment improves. They may make the point as well that it is more personally uplifting to feed one's family as a result of holding employment, than it is to be dependent on food stamp assistance.
Alternative one is that James Fallows is ignorant of this argument or fails to see that it might resonate with people of all races who hope to support themselves in the job market. That would imply an obtuseness that other evidence does not support.
Alternative two is that James Fallows understands this formulation but pretends not to for the specific purpose of unfairly accusing its proponents of racism. Given that the distribution of food stamp assistance is broadly represented among whites, Latinos, and blacks in America, even if the argument were "nobody should be receiving food stamps", which it clearly isn't, where is the racial viciousness supposed to come from? The ugly smearing appears to be coming from this hypothetical James Fallows alternative two.
Look, there are plenty of cultural, aesthetic, and policy issues you may have with the Republican South Carolina campaign. It might be wise to confine your arguments to those real differences rather than smearing people for slurs they do not make.
See that? Same mentality as Jenny Sanford.
And yes, that was racist, too.
Fallows promptly ripped the reader to shreds:
Here is a third alternative, the one I believe: that Newt Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing when he calls Obama the "food stamp" president, just as Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing when talking about "welfare Cadillacs." There are lots of other ways to make the point about economic hard times -- entirely apart from which person and which policies are to blame for today's mammoth joblessness, and apart from the fact that Congress sets food stamp policies. You could call him the "pink slip president," the "foreclosure president," the "Walmart president," the "Wall Street president," the "Citibank president," the "bailout president," or any of a dozen other images that convey distress. You decide to go with "the food stamp president," and you're doing it on purpose.
And what am I supposed to think of people who deny that what Newt is doing is being done on purpose?
Now the good news is that people get it. People (mostly notably, a lot of White people, like Fallows) are calling this stuff for what it is. Nothing makes me happier.
But clearly, Newt Gingrich, Rick "Blah People" Santorum, Jenny Sanford and this douchebag who wrote in to Fallows are not the only racists in the Republican Party or Conservative set. My problem is that within the party of Lincoln, the cancer is growing.
(By the way, you did notice we haven't even touched on the racist crap Ron Paul's done, right?)
I have known and continue to know a lot of Republicans in my life. The Republicans I know are primarily Eisenhower-style, Small Government, Fiscally Conservative, yet Socially Liberal types. Yes, they are out there...
...but they’re also out there providing cover for the racists that are out there, and now it is their silence that is starting to speak volumes to me.
You want more examples? How about this?
Or this from December of 2011?
Okay, so maybe that last one wasn't code so much.
Don't joke with us. We know the codes. Stop using them, or get called out for what you really are.
The Compleat Stephen Colbert appearance on Morning Joe (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
"I-I-I-I-I'm...so in love with you..." (VIDEO)
Is it just me, or does the President seem...really, really, REALLY chill this election season?
As a side-question to the non-African-Americans out there: we all understood the Sandman reference, right?
UPDATE 9:11am, Pacific: Okay, now Josh Marshall, proprietor of Talking Points Memo, is getting all kinds of video of the President singing. Can an Album drop be too far behind?
Aretha Franklin:
Dionne Warwick:
As a side-question to the non-African-Americans out there: we all understood the Sandman reference, right?
UPDATE 9:11am, Pacific: Okay, now Josh Marshall, proprietor of Talking Points Memo, is getting all kinds of video of the President singing. Can an Album drop be too far behind?
Aretha Franklin:
Dionne Warwick:
Thursday, January 19, 2012
You deserve to read the President's whole answer on Simpson-Bowles...
This is from the Fareed Zakaria's interview with President Obama (his questions are in red). And I highlight it because noted deficit-scold Andrew Sullivan, posted just a little teeny-tiny bit of the Simpson Bowles answer toward the end of the interview (the part in blue).
Personally, I'd like you to read the whole thing:
Personally, I'd like you to read the whole thing:
You talked a lot about how foreign policy ultimately has to derive from American strength, and so when I talk to businessmen, a lot of them are dismayed that you have not signaled to the world and to markets that the U.S. will get its fiscal house in order by embracing your deficit commission, the Simpson-Bowles. And that walking away from that,which is a phrase I’ve heard a lot, has been a very bad signal to the world. Why won’t you embrace Simpson-Bowles?
I’ve got to say, most of the people who say that, if you asked them what’s in Simpson-Bowles, they couldn’t tell you. So first of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I’m the one who created the commission. If I hadn’t pushed it, it wouldn’t have happened, because congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away from it.
The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was, we have to take a balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenues, increased revenues, in order to close our deficits and deal with our debt. And although I did not agree with every particular that was proposed in Simpson-Bowles — which, by the way, if you asked most of the folks who were on Simpson-Bowles, did they agree with every provision in there?, they’d say no as well.
What I did do is to take that framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, defense cuts, health care cuts as well as revenues and said, We’re ready to make a deal. And I presented that three times to Congress. So the core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit-reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress.
There wasn’t any magic in Simpson-Bowles. They didn’t have some special sauce or formula that avoided us making these tough choices. They’re the same choices that I’ve said I’m prepared to make. And the only reason it hasn’t happened is the Republicans were unwilling to do anything on revenue. Zero. Zip. Nada.
The revenues that we were seeking were far less than what was in Simpson-Bowles. We’ve done more discretionary cuts than was called for in Simpson-Bowles. The things that supposedly would be harder for my side to embrace we’ve said we’d be willing to do. The whole half of Simpson-Bowles that was hard ideologically for the Republicans to embrace they’ve said they’re not going to do any of them.
So this notion that the reason that it hasn’t happened is we didn’t embrace Simpson-Bowles is just nonsense. And by the way, if you talk to some of these same business leaders who say, Well, he shouldn’t have walked away from Simpson-Bowles, and you said, Well, are you prepared to kick capital gains and dividends taxation up to ordinary income —
— which is what Simpson-Bowles —
— which is what Simpson-Bowles called for, they would gag. There’s not one of those business leaders who would accept a bet. They’d say, Well, we embrace Simpson-Bowles except for that part that would cause us to pay a lot more.
And in terms of the defense cuts that were called for in Simpson-Bowles, they were far deeper than even what would have been required if the sequester goes through, and so would have not been a responsible pathway for us to reduce our deficit spending. Now, that’s not the fault of Simpson-Bowles. What they were trying to do was provide us a basic framework, and we took that framework, and we have pushed it forward.
And so there should be clarity here. There’s no equivalence between Democratic and Republican positions when it comes to deficit reduction. We’ve shown ourselves to be serious. We’ve made a trillion dollars worth of cuts already. We’ve got another $1.5 trillion worth of cuts on the chopping blocks. But what we’ve also said is, in order for us to seriously reduce the deficit, there’s got to be increased revenue. There’s no way of getting around it. It’s basic math. And if we can get any Republicans to show any serious commitment — not vague commitments, not “We’ll get revenues because of tax reform somewhere in the future, but we don’t know exactly what that looks like and we can’t identify a single tax that we would allow to go up” — but if we can get any of them who are still in office, as opposed to retired, to commit to that, we’ll be able to reduce our deficit.
Now, to your larger point, you’re absolutely right. Our whole foreign policy has to be anchored in economic strength here at home. And if we are not strong, stable, growing, making stuff, training our workforce so that it’s the most skilled in the world, maintaining our lead in innovation, in basic research, in basic science, in the quality of our universities, in the transparency of our financial sector, if we don’t maintain the upward mobility and equality of opportunity that underwrites our political stability and makes us a beacon for the world, then our foreign policy leadership will diminish as well.
Can we do that in a world with so much competition from so many countries? One of the things you do hear people say is, You know, we have all this regulation. You’re trying to make America more competitive, but you’ve got Dodd-Frank, you’ve got health care. There’s all this new regulation. And in that context, are we going to be able to be competitive, to attract investment, to create jobs?
Absolutely. Look, first of all, with respect to regulation, this whole notion that somehow there’s been this huge tidal wave of regulation is not true, and we can provide you the facts. Our regulations have a lower cost than the comparable regulations under the Bush Administration; they have far higher benefits.
We have engaged in a unprecedented regulatory look-back, where we’re weeding out and clearing up a whole bunch of regulations that were outdated and outmoded, and we’re saving businesses billions of dollars and tons of paperwork and man-hours that they’re required to fill out a bunch of forms that aren’t needed. So our regulatory track record actually is very solid.
I just had a conference last week where we had a group of manufacturing companies — some service companies as well — that are engaging in insourcing. They’re bringing work back to the United States and plants back to the United States, because as the wages in China and other countries begin to increase, and U.S. worker productivity has gone way up, the cost differential for labor has significantly closed.
And what these companies say is, as long as the United States is still investing in the best infrastructure in the world, the best education system in the world, is training enough skilled workers and engineers and is creating a stable platform for businesses to succeed and providing us with certainty, there’s no reason why America can’t be the most competitive advanced economy in the world.
But that requires us to continue to up our game and do things better and do things smart. We’ve started that process over the last three years. We’ve still got a lot more work to do, because we’re reversing decade-long trends where our education system didn’t keep pace with the improvements that were taking place in other countries; where other countries started to invest more in research and development, and we didn’t up our game; where our infrastructure began to deteriorate at a time when other countries were investing in their infrastructure; and, frankly, where we have gotten bogged down politically in ways that don’t allow us to take strong, decisive action on issues in ways that we’ve been able to do in the past.
And so my whole goal in the last three years and my goal over the next five years is going to be to continue to chip away at these things that are holding us back. And I’m absolutely confident there’s no problem that America is facing right now that we can’t solve, as long we’re working together. That’s our job.
The first Obama Campaign Ad, in case you missed it (VIDEO)
Running now in six swing states. Take THAT Turd Blossom!
American Prospect: Who knew the State Department was so hip? (VIDEO)
Great stories from both the American Prospect and Foreign Policy.
Can't say we didn't try.
Oh, yeah...the Russians did just that:
Can't say we didn't try.
Oh, yeah...the Russians did just that:
Apparently, this is Moscow's idea of rolling out the "red carpet": Russian state television today launched an all-out assault on new U.S. Ambassador Mike McFaul.
"The fact is that McFaul is not an expert on Russia. He is a specialist in a particular pure democracy promotion," read a report published on Russia 1, the channel that is run by the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK).
The Russian government was evidently displeased that McFaul met with human rights activists in his first official function at the Moscow embassy, where he was joined by visiting Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. The Russian media's public smear campaign against McFaul accused him of working on behalf of the "so-called democratic movement" in the country during the early 1990s, when he visited there on behalf of the National Democratic Institute -- an organization "known for its proximity to the U.S. intelligence services," according to the TV report.
The report then quotes from several of McFaul's writings and from The Cable's post on McFaul to accuse him of having an agenda of supporting Russian opposition groups in an attempt to destabilize the Russian government.
The hostile welcome represents a sharp rebuke to McFaul's message of openness and cooperation that he brought with him upon arriving in Moscow last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)