Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
What does everyone think?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
It has been said that even the devil can quote Scripture for his purposes. So too, apparently, can conservatives quote Martin Luther King Jr. for theirs. To wit, Glenn Beck, who has perfected the craft of cribbing from Dr. King, thereby debasing the majestic prose of the latter and distorting King's intentions to the point where they would have been unrecognizable to him.
And so, after Beck's weekend rally, which coincided with the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, Beck explained that while he disagrees with the part of the civil rights movement that was about social justice and economic equity -- which is to say he disagrees with pretty much all of it -- he agrees with the other part. You know that one line, literally, one line from King's "I Have a Dream" speech -- the one about how we should judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
It is always this line to which conservatives make reference. For years they've employed it so as to attack affirmative action. If King believed in character over color, they intone, he would have opposed such programs in employment or college admissions. Of course, that's the kind of thinking that follows when you don't actually listen to the entire speech from which the one line was taken, or read any of King's writings.
Had conservatives done the latter, for instance, they might have stumbled upon what King had to say about the issue we now know as affirmative action. In his book "Why We Can't Wait," King noted:
"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."
After regaining my composure, I proceeded to read the article in the hopes that the title was surely satirical because there is no way in the world a serious person would be making the comparison between the assassinated civil rights leader and the Fox News television host. But I was wrong.Glenn Beck is the White Malcolm X
Dear Tea Party, I hereby challenge your leader, Sarah Palin, to a 30 minute debate on the Constitution. Any time. Any place. No teleprompters, no earpieces, no coaches or lifelines, and no notes (including notes written on the hand). Just the two of us, an unedited live stream video feed, and the entire American public watching. The moderator will ask, oh I dunno, the most basic friggin' "un-gotcha" type questions about the Constitution such as (i) how many articles does it have?; (ii) which Amendment gives us the Right to Bear Arms?; (iii) which Amendment gives us Equal Protection?; and (iv) does the 1st Amendment right to free speech protect us against private individuals or protect us against the Government? (we'll come back to that last one) The loser has to pack up their shit and leave political discussion forever and agree never to use the word "Constitution" ever again for as long as they shall live. Agreed?Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
It turns out the United States Department of Education keeps video of the presentations of Race to the Top applicants. And that video, obtained by Star Ledger (that's it, below) directly contradicts Gov. Christie's claim that Washington bureaucrats were at fault for not letting NJ just fix a basic error in the application.
Does anybody in Washington, D.C. have a lick of common sense? Pick up the phone and ask us for the number. - - Gov. Christie
Actually, Christie's characteristic bluster aside, the video reveals that the NJ team was asked directly for that information, and they struggled to answer, and couldn't provide it. In fact, they apparently never provided it.
| Excerpt of N.J.'s Race to the Top interview shows officials with no budget answer |
To elect more Democrats to Congress and keep moving America forward, we've got to get back to the doors--just like we did in 2008--and talk to voters about how important it is to vote this fall.Click here to find an event near you!
Our goal is 200,000 doors knocked across the country over the weekend of August 28th--it’s an ambitious number, but we can reach it if everyone pitches in.
See what’s happening on the weekend of August 28th and join a Moving America Forward event near you.
Gov. Chris Christie this morning acknowledged the state made a clerical error that blew its chance at winning $400 million in federal money for schools, but he blamed Obama administration bureaucrats for not giving New Jersey a chance to correct the mistake.
“This is the stuff, candidly, that drives people crazy about government and crazy about Washington,” Christie said at a news conference after an unrelated bill signing.
Christie slapped two thick three-ringed binders on the podium containing more than 1,000 pages of the state's “Race to the Top” application and appendices, noting that just one piece of paper contained the error.
“The first part of it is the mistake of putting the wrong piece of paper in," Christie said. "It drives people crazy and, believe me, I’m not thrilled about it. But the second part is, does anybody in Washington, D.C. have a lick of common sense? Pick up the phone and ask us for the number.”
New Jersey narrowly lost out on the funding, placing three points behind Ohio – the lowest scoring state to receive funds. But on its application, New Jersey lost 4.8 points by submitting budget information on school funding for 2010 and 2011 instead of 2008 and 2009, as the application requested.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Parent Company Trap | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
Ok, America, let's admit it - we are Islamophobic. It's true. That doesn't mean we are bad people, but it does mean we have some issues to work out with respect to Muslims. We'd like to think that we've been acting out of patriotism over the past few weeks in reaction to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (hereinafter "SCGZM") controversy, and it certainly sounds admirable to say that we oppose the SCGZM because the site of the World Trade Center is hallowed ground, however, the only way that such an argument works logically is if we oppose those who were actually responsible for the horrific tragedy that took place on 9/11 - not the entire religion of Islam. To blame all Muslims for 9/11 and oppose all Mosques is the logical equivalent of having a family member murdered by a person of a particular race and, from that day forward, blaming all members of that race and opposing any of the members of said race from moving in next door to the crime scene. The fact that a recent Time poll reveals that nearly 70% of Americans buy into the aforementioned inductive reasoning argument, 33% of Americans believe that Muslims should be barred from running for President, and 24% of Americans mistakenly believe that Obama is a Muslim (not to mention the largely overlooked yet very important fact that we are even having a discussion about the SCGZM in the first place) can only speak to one truth if we are honest with ourselves - America, we are Islamophobic.![]() |
| Art by: Charlene Cooper, Phila., PA |
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| News Corp. Gives Money to Republicans | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
You’d think that the end of combat operations in Iraq would be a pretty big deal for progressive activists. After all a significant amount of the organizing that occurred during the Bush years was built around ending the war in Iraq. Progressive organizations like MoveOn took bold steps and grew during that time period. Hundreds of thousands of activists marched in the streets during this time period.
It was such a huge issue that it became a point of contrast between the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates. All of the candidates promised to end the Iraq war by the end of their first term, but Hillary Clinton took significant flack from progressive activists for casting a vote in support of the war. Sen. Barack Obama was not yet in office when the war began and was able to claim the high ground.
And you look around today and there’s just not a whole lot of coverage on this, and certainly not very much excitement on behalf of progressive activists. The Rachel Maddow show did a segment live from Iraq, and there’s been some mention of it on blogs and twitter. But nothing approaching the level of attention it deserves given the organizing energy and resources activists used on it for almost the whole duration of the conflict. At the very least I’d expect an email from an organization like MoveOn.
Yes about 50,000 troops and contractors are remaining on the ground to serve as trainers. But even today there are around 25,000 troops stationed in South Korea, and we’re talking about a conflict that ended over 50 years ago. I’d say it’s in our interest to strengthen the new Iraqi state so that it doesn’t devolve into civil war.
The furor over the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero makes me think back to one of the most important lessons I learned from al Qaeda terrorists I interrogated--that they have a warped view of America. To them--and this they get from Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric--the U.S. is a country at war with Islam and Muslims, and so they had a duty to fight us.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mosque-Erade | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
I’ve gone back and forth on whether or not I should even post on this issue. For one, it is such a controversial issue that usually stamps out any intellectual conversation. Also, it is family business, and even though the subjects are anonymous, I still felt a LITTLE guilty putting their business on the Internet.
Not long ago, the public debate on immigration shifted from the undocumented workers themselves to their children. "Anchor Babies" as they have come to be known. The problem with these so-called "anchor babies" is that they are protected by this pesky little thing known as the Constitution. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution to be exact. It contains this crazy concept that says if you're born here, then you're a citizen. Imagine that. Some key political voices on the Conservative/Republican side of this debate came up with their own version of a solution to this little problem: repeal the 14th Amendment. We had an entire post about it HERE, so I won't spend any more time going into the merits of that debate. It does, however, present an interesting concept when you begin to apply the repeal strategy to other national debates. For example, the Mosque that's about to be built a few city blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan is protected by the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Religion Clause....so why not repeal the 1st Amendment?!?!? I know what you're thinking - that's crazy right? Nobody would dare to repeal something as sacred as the 1st Amendment, right? I mean the 14th Amendment, sure. No problem. Who needs that old thing? But the 1st Amendment? How would somebody even fix their mouth to propose such a thing? Well it might sound something like this:Obama didn't just stand up for the legal right of the group to build the Islamic center. He voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so as well, casting it as central to American identity. This is a critical point, and it goes to the the essence of why his speech was so commendable.
Many opponents of the project have been employing a clever little dodge. They say they don't question the group's legal right to build it under the Constitution. Rather, they say, they're merely criticizing the group's decision to do so, on the grounds that it's insensitive to 9/11 families and will undercut the project's goal of reconciliation. The group has the right to build the center, runs this argument, but they are wrong to exercise it. In response, Obama could have merely cast this dispute as a Constitutional issue, talked about how important it is to hew to that hallowed document, and moved on.
That said, of everything in that exchange, Dr. Laura's use of the "N-word" was the least offensive -- and least racist -- element; quoting racial slurs isn't cool -- they're still racial slurs, with all the historical baggage that includes -- but you can imagine scenarios where quoting a racial slur is appropriate to the conversation.And of course every time Dr. Laura does something I am reminded of this amazing clip from The West Wing where President Bartlet PWNS the fake Dr. Laura. Check it out after the jump:
In actuality, it's the rest of her rant that drips with racial animus. To recap: Dr. Laura immediately dismisses her caller's problems, uses a racist joke to prove her non-racism, insists that black people voted for Obama over nothing but racial solidarity (as if pre-Obama, African Americans never voted for Democrats), strongly resents the fact that "black guys" can use the "N-word" but she can't, and declares that "If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry outside of your race." Dr. Laura isn't known for her sensitivity, but this is an impressive display of raw racial resentment.
![]() |
| On the left are the job losses between December 2007 and July 2009 and on the right are the job losses since Obama's policies took effect (i.e. THE STIMULUS). |
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Deductible Me | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
I am going to be on Sirius XM's show Make It Plain hosted by Mark Thompson tonight to discuss the latest dust up between the "professional left" and the White House.
OK, so what's all the hub bub, Bub? This is one of those over dramatic stories that just begs you to say "really?" The First Lady is taking a vacation in Spain and...this is newsworthy? Look, I know that media feels it must cover all things Presidential but this story might have jumped slightly outside the realm of the irrelevant and officially crossed over into the land of the petty. The spin on this thing has been Shirley Sherrod-esque, ranging from an entourage of 40 of Michelle's closest friends taking an all-expense paid trip on the American tax payer's dime, to Michelle deserving the trip as reparations for slavery. The Daily News even went so far as to call her the "modern-day Marie Antoinette" opining that "while most of the country is pinching pennies...the Obamas don't seem to be heeding their own advice." As with most fake outrage, a quick look at the facts goes a long way to stop the madness: