So according to Nevada Senate candidate Sharon Angle paying into unemployment and then using it once you lose your job is "entitlement." What?
Rachel Maddow explains why this is ridiculous thinking after the jump:
The other day while listening to one of the local Black radio stations in NYC I heard something that pissed me off so bad that I actually called into the radio station to give everybody involved a piece of my mind. The topic of the day, whether to spend or save one's money, was played out vicariously through a young soon-to-be-married Black couple whom the radio host and crew had invited onto their morning show in order to determine who was right and who was wrong within the relationship. A morning show equivalent of a Judge Judy, if you will. The man made the case for saving their money in hopes of one day having something for their wedding and for their unborn children. The female, however, made a rather impassioned case that, since they didn't have any children yet, she should be able to shop and spend as much money as she wants. From where she sat, so long as she paid the minimum balance on her credit cards each month, it was of no consequence that they were maxed out or that she and her fiance were living from check to check. She argued that once kids come into the equation, then they should worry about saving. Until that day comes, however, she was going to stay in the fliest Gucci, Prada, and [insert label here] gear that she could get her hands on. At the conclusion of these two arguments, the radio show opened up the phone lines for comments as to who was right, and who was wrong. I thought to myself, surely this is a no-brainer - especially in this economy where folks are losing jobs left and right. Surely the deepest recession since the Great Depression, not to mention an unemployment rate in the Black Community nearly double that of the national average, has seized the attention of Black people everywhere and awakened us from our financially illiterate slumber like Laurence Fishburne screaming "Wake Up!" all over campus at the end of School Daze. What I heard next left my jaw open.Wow. Mature. Definitely the guy I want running a war. Ironically, McChystal's team nicknamed themselves, "Team America" after these guys:Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner. "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
The trouble with appointing Stanley McChrystal to run the Af-Pak war was always his temperament and his history. He is a driven man, strong-headed, amazingly disciplined, extremely able in a limited fashion - and clearly unused to compromise or getting along with people as powerful as he is. Diplomat he is not. As head of JSOC, moreover, he has always regarded himself as above political management, running a part of the military that seems at times to answer to no-one, and that, under Bush and Cheney was unleashed to do whatever it wanted, including, of course, brutal torture in the field, condoned from the very top.
And more on the jabs at Biden:These qualities might have seemed appealing at first for Afghanistan. Here you had a former torturer/badass who had learned by brutal experience that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be won that way. Converted to counter-insurgency as a philosophy, he was an apostate from the Bush-Cheney approach of "kill, bomb and torture until they embrace human rights" school.
Sullivan continues:It doesn't take a genius to see this contempt as rooted in the growing recognition among many and the growing fear among the McChrystal clique that Biden has been right all along, that the McChrystal strategy was a product of hope over experience, and that the arrogance that drove it was part of what had long been wrong with the conduct of both tragically flawed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's a shock, isn't it? Obama essentially gave McChrystal everything he asked for, and backed the full counter-insurgency strategy. He has, in my view, foolishly thrown more resources and more ambition at this hopeless task than his predecessor ever did. And yet, McChrystal and his flunkies still feel the need to bad-mouth and mock those who lost the argument. This is news, no? It's important news. It reflects on the character and integrity of the man tasked to lead America's longest ever war. So why, one wonders, have we not heard a peep of this from all the official MSM Pentagon reporters and analysts with their deep sources and long experience?
The plan is to bankrupt everyone in the government with lawyer fees and tie up the administration so they can't get anything done. The accusations, lies and smears will dwarf the Clinton-era and the slime will destroy people's faith in government and democracy. That works for them. It helps put the big corporations in charge.
Imagine what this country will be like if this new breed of teabagger Republicans gets back in power in even one House of the Congress!
We can complain that Democrats didn't legitimately investigate Bush-era corruption, war crimes, torture... We can complain that they held no one accountable after Bush left office for the corruption, lies, war crimes, even torture. We can complain that some - even many - Democrats have not stood up for us against the wealthy and powerful.
BUT when you complain about "the Democrats" you are misinterpreting the problem in a way that misdirects you from the necessary action to solve the problem. The problem is SOME Democrats, not THE Democrats.
Earlier today, The Root did a piece entitled "The Myth of Black-on-Black Violence" wherein the author cited to our blog, The Urban Politico, to help make the argument that the term "Black-on-Black Violence" is problematic because it unjustifiably plays the race card with respect to the general issue of violent crime in America that occurs between Blacks. Rather than focusing on the racial component of Blacks killing other Blacks, the author suggests that we should instead view Black-on-Black crime just as we would view White-on-White crime. In other words, "Black-on-Black" crime should not be the burden of the Black Community. To quote the author's commentary:Well, since we were, after all, called out by name in this article, far be it for us not to respond with our own rebuttal to The Root, after the jump:I am not rooting for the knucklehead. Actually just the opposite. I refuse to be responsible for his actions. I refuse to be expected to explain his/her actions. It is not my responsibility more than anyone else in this country who is a citizen. This is the definition of agency--to exercise your full rights as citizens. If we were in some black nation within a nation that might make sense to "self-police." Then we'd have a "black tax" to pay "black officers" etc. I pay U.S. tax and local tax and that is who is responsible for police work. The sooner everyone, black white, yellow red, whatever realizes this the better. It's NOT an academic debate. Non-black people don't get to look the other way. It's their country---and their problem too. Just like its ours.
Arizona is like the gift that keeps on giving. I mean, are these guys on a roll or are they on a roll? Never before has one U.S. state enacted so much suspect legislation all in the same year...and all of it aimed at the same group of people: Mexicans. First, there was the legendary "show me your papers or else" bill that was signed into law by Republican Governor, Jan Brewer a few months ago. Then, before that issue could even get cold, Arizona's majority Republican legislature and Governor Brewer pass yet another law banning any "Ethnic Studies" classes such as Latino Studies courses. And now, the creators of "F#ck You, Pablo!" and its sequel, "F#ck You, Pablo! Part II: The Mexican Book Burning" now bring you the third installment "F#ck You, Pablo! Part III: And Take Your Anchor Baby With You!" That's right folks, it's the trifecta: (1) We don't want you here, (2) We don't want anybody learning about you; and (3) We hate you so much, even if your baby is born here it doesn't count as a citizen.
As you are hopefully aware, over a month ago, oil company BP had one of the biggest screw ups in recent American history that is still polluting the Gulf Coast with millions of gallons of oil as we speak. Like clockwork, the political hacks on both sides of the aisle have been busy at work criticizing the Obama Administration's response from not enough to too much. One thing seems to be certain: as long as the problem continues to exist, the Obama Administration remains vulnerable to a host of criticisms from news pundits and politicians alike. Among these criticisms, there seems to be some sort of agreement from both sides that Obama himself is not showing enough emotion with respect to outrage surrounding the tragedy. In other words, the country is once again looking for Obama to become the "Angry Black Man" that some were looking for during the 2008 campaign. As we have seen time and time again since 2008, Obama is the personification of cool, calm and collected, even in the face of controversies that would make the best of us scream from the top of our lungs and throw a shoe or two at somebody. Due to this persona, Obama often receives the same 2 comments: (i) he is complimented on his ability to remain calm during crisis, and (ii) he is criticized as seeming too "detached" from the common man. To be sure, we've consistently seen the calm-during-crisis guy, but does this sophisticated persona come at the expense of blocking any emotional connection with the American people? In other words, does America need to see emotion from its leaders?
One term that emerged from the 2008 election more times than we cared to hear it was the phrase "Real American." We've blogged about this term before. If you are confused as to what does or does not constitute a "Real American", be advised that "Real Americans" are effectively anybody who lives in a small town, believes that America is infallible, and is filled with such joy every time that Sarah Palin gives a stump speech that they begin to glow with a golden aura like Bruce Lee Roy. Given all of this American pride, one would naturally assume that the citizens of this country have a deep understanding of America and its history. OK maybe "deep understanding" is a bit aggressive...how about "basic understanding?" No? Still asking for too much? Well according to the latest Yahoo News story, we may have to just settle for whatever we can get:• Two-thirds of the 1,000 American adults polled couldn't name a single current justice, and just 1 percent were able to name all nine sitting justices.In a country where our national laws are crafted to give deference to whatever "the majority" of Americans want, given the fact that "the majority" of Americans do not know the basics about America, what does that say about the entire notion of "majority rule" in this country?
• More Americans could identify Michael Jackson as the composer of "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" than could identify the Bill of Rights as a body of amendments to the Constitution.
• More than 50 percent of respondents attributed the quote "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" to either Thomas Paine, George Washington or President Obama. The quote is from Karl Marx, author of "The Communist Manifesto."
• More than a third did not know the century in which the American Revolution took place, and half of respondents believed that either the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation or the War of 1812 occurred before the American Revolution.
• With a political movement now claiming the mantle of the Revolutionary-era Tea Party, more than half of respondents misidentified the outcome of the 18th-century agitation as a repeal of taxes, rather than as a key mobilization of popular resistance to British colonial rule.
• A third mistakenly believed that the Bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to a trial by jury, while 40 percent mistakenly thought that it did secure the right to vote.
• More than half misidentified the system of government established in the Constitution as a direct democracy, rather than a republic-a question that must be answered correctly by immigrants qualifying for U.S. citizenship.
