Tag Archives: chris hayes

Stand Up for Chris Hayes

Sooo, Chris Hayes had a great segment on Sunday about the origins of Memorial Day, with interviews with the mother of a fallen soldier and an officer that gives death notices to fallen soldiers’ families.  I thought it was quite sensitive as a whole to the soldiers’ memories.  The right wing blogosphere has exploded with scorn for his comments @6:20:

This crap from Donny Douche and the rest of the wingosphere makes me want to punch my computer screen.  Never mind that NBC pretty much  disavowed anything Hayes said.

I’m not sure how Star Jones and Donny Deutchebag are “professionals” on anything, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t watch the whole segment from Sunday.  They probably just heard that one quote from Matt Lauer, or the slightly longer but still out of context clip that The Blaze is promoting.   The same is true of everyone else that’s attacking him.  As Conor Friedersdorf points out,

…it’s worth asking what we want in an opinion broadcaster. Someone with whom we never disagree? Someone whose arguments never provoke or even offend us? For a fragile sort, maybe those qualities would prove ideal. But mature adults keen on useful public discourse ought to value different things. Even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that Hayes’ monologue was wrongheaded and offensive, it would remain the case that he 1) made sure to explicitly note that he wasn’t disrespecting any soldier who’d fallen — that is to say, he tried to anticipate which people might be needlessly offended, and to assure them that he meant something different than they thought; 2) he noted that he could be wrong; 3) he invited a panel of other intelligent people to disagree; 4) and when no one did disagree, the first thing he did was try to articulate the best counterargument that he could formulate. Unless you’re a delicate flower looking for a broadcaster who never articulates any idea with which you’re uncomfortable, what more can you ask from someone in Hayes’ position?

Indeed.  Given the full context, I think it was quite reasonable, and many reasonable (as opposed to Reasonable) people probably feel the same way as Hayes and I do about the manipulation and glorification of language in our political system.

More great comments, via The Blaze:

I would LOVE to line them up, and shoot the whole lot of these ******.[Metaphorically speaking. OF COURSE] What an ungrateful lot of horse turds. Makes one kinda wish their parents believed in ABORTION, when their mothers were pregnant with them. Of course, their FATHER, in real terms is SATAN!

Advertisements

The Real Pundits are horrible

Atrios has his #1 wanker of the decade up.  I’ll save the time and reveal that it’s Tom Friedman, which is surprising a little, but I think he was going more for the mainstream beltway types, not the rabid hysterics over at Fox.

Friedman comes off as an intelligent guy, which I suppose most of these beltway morons do.  I could always sense something about him.  I’ve always been wary of those people that spend countless breaths saying absolutely nothing.  And as Atrios has documented (as I’m sure others have), Friedman has a habit of changing his mind and either conveniently forgetting or making some new excuse for himself.  His ‘suck on this‘ moment was as classic as it was horrifying.

This guy is an enabler.  When we’ve got so called ‘liberals’ calling for aggressive militaristic policies, we’ve got problems.  It’s a strange dynamic that somehow makes it easier for Obama to further George W. Bush’s agenda.

We’ve really got a terrible political class.  Chris Hayes has a new book on this.


The folly of beating up on ‘welfare queens’

I’m seeing more and more hostility towards the very poor lately, with the facebook memes galore.  They are obviously from conservative-leaning sites.  This is just one example of ‘conservatives’ speaking out about lazy, do-nothings that just suck up our tax dollars for no good reason.

Never mentioned, not even on their radar screen, is corporate policy.  This contains two elements:  First, one must ignore or be unaware of the huge amounts that are funnelled into corporate coffers at taxpayer expense, either as tax breaks, credits, deductions, subsidies, or even the bailouts which the non-libertarian right wing (hypocritically, in my opinion) decried as violating the basics of capitalism, a practice in which they are, to put it mildly, well versed.   Rarely will you find a major news story about these huge giveaways, especially one that would condemn it.  Conversely, stories about the lower classes (as well as the government) ‘wasting’ money are fair game, often with exaggerations, or even outright falsehood (see the DOJ $16 muffin ‘scandal’).

Second, the constant barrage of advertising, inculcation of values (from television and the internet, as well as other sources), along with generally accepted attitudes about the poor (along with the shitty economy) seem to be a major factor in peoples drive to stop the lazy and shiftless (minorities?) from stealing their hard-earned tax dollars for such immoral and useless endeavors as eating, housing, and health care.  Reality television, as Chris Hedges will tell you, does a great job of humiliating the poor, putting them in their proper place, and keeping us thinking right by blaming their situation on their morality or actions alone, as if they existed in a vacuum independent of society at large.

As noted yesterday on this segment on Up with Chris Hayes, the majority of  people on SNAP (foodstamps) and TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) are single mothers and children.  So if we are to condemn them broadly for their moral and financial failings, we condemn the children with them.  As any sensible person knows (which doesn’t include a large swath of the population), you can’t blame the kids and they shouldn’t suffer needlessly, whether the fault of the parent(s) or society at large.

Basically, this is a classic and well-honed strategy of ‘divide and conquer’, getting people in the same or similar classes to be at each others throats for sharing (wasting) resources that could be put to much better use (tax cuts and wars).  Meanwhile, the ultra-minority at the top siphons wealth from us all, neglecting public needs, and directing anger at the government.  (Tea party, anyone)?