Skip to main content

I am sometimes amazed at coincidences. Bill Maher’s Real Time showing today actually provided several learning experiences for those who are willing to think; not only outside the box, but with moral clarity. But I first digress.

I am a member of Move To Amend (MTA) and serve on the Executive Committee. I just got back from our bi-yearly executive committee meeting in Portland Oregon where we discussed where we are taking our democracy movement.

MTA’s mission is multifaceted. It has the specific aim to effect the passing of a constitutional amendment that codifies that money is not speech and corporations should not have the inalienable rights as do human beings. Our broader goal is a transformational democracy movement that will ensure that ALL Americans are privy to making the aspirational American dream their own reality.

From its inception MTA understood that one can only create transformational change if a movement is all inclusive. A movement can only be all inclusive if that which maintains the divisions is mitigated; if those that are oppressed are liberated. Why are toxic dumps and dirty factories built almost exclusively in minority neighborhoods or low income neighborhoods? Why as a black man irrespective of those that deny it I am followed in stores more so than my white counterpart? Why is an assertive woman a bitch while Dan Rather is just assertive? Why are Bryant Gumbel’s actions arrogant while Ted Koppel‘s display professionalism?

Anyone going through our anti-oppression and the ills of white privilege training would understand the causal dynamics of the above mentioned dichotomies. However, today’s exchange between Bill Maher’s guest Joy Reid and Charles Cooke was a classic. It displayed how the same reality can be viewed very differently from the oppressed or the one who can empathize with the oppressed as opposed to the view from the oppressor or the one that empathizes with the oppressor.

Prior to the dialogue Bill Maher seemed to be taking a Right Wing position relative to the Muslim countries, by implying their revolution being Islamic has a component that makes them inherently our enemies or less valid than other revolutions. That narrative led to the following dialog between Charles Cooke and Joy Reid.

Charles Cooke: So I think Americans have a problem thinking about this sometimes because -- and I include myself with British people because the revolution that happened here was great and very rarely is that the case in the word. You have this revolution in America in which the British fight the British and then they codify classical liberal values into a constitution and it’s great. But that’s not how it goes down normally. Normally there is bloodshed and its horrible and especially in the Middle East what they want to replace their dictatorships with if you look at the polling it’s Sharia law.

Joy Reid: But the revolution in the US was great unless you were a slave and then there was a war where 600,000 Americans had to die to make it better. Revolution isn’t always great. In the French Revolution there were beheadings. Revolutions are messy. You want people to have democracy it can be messy.

Charles Cooke: The slavery point I think is cheap.

Joy Reid: You mean the revolution in the United States that produced a government that included slaves that included enslaved Africans; it’s a cheap shot to include that in the narrative? I mean, that is part of the narrative.

Charles Cooke: The point is if you are looking for perfection in the18th century you are not going to find it. What the Americans did was a massive step forward. It wasn’t perfect. It was resolved in a Civil War that was bloody and awful. But if we are going to write off the greatest revolution, the greatest constitution in the world because it was imperfect and it was flawed then we should all go home.

Joy Reid: In the Middle East we are also saying these are imperfect revolutions. Whenever the US goes in and try to impose our vision of democracy in that region we fail.

I generally take all in a stride. I must admit that listening to that British prick (Charles Cooke) pissed me off. If one is sitting on the side of the revolution that concludes with one having rights or the semblance of rights, one can be dismissive. If even after the civil war by having white skin one had the semblance of freedom one could be dismissive. If you were Black, Native, Chinese, to some extent a woman of any race, or other, irrespective of this constitution Cooke believes is so great, generations after generations of these people lived without experiencing said greatness.

Cooke should revisit his history and understand who that constitution was originally written for. He can start here. Even after the Civil War, most Americans could not vote. Most Americans were afforded few rights. The one genius within the constitution is its elastic clause, the built in mechanism to amend it or change it with a Constitutional Convention potentially avoiding bloody conflicts in order to effect its change.

I am sure Joy Reid could have been much sharper in hitting back at this prick. It is evident that she tempered her response. After-all, she wants to be invited on this show and others again and again.

LIKE My Facebook PageVisit My Blog:

Originally posted to ProgressiveLiberal on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:56 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The revolution will continue for as long as (12+ / 0-)

    discrimination occurs.

    Eventually radical Islam will be reduced to the history books along with the Inquisition, the crusades and the Vatican's control over education.

    Trouble is now in the west we have rising christian fundamentalism, anti-science and the rise of extremist right wing parties/movements. All overseen by a plutocracy.

    Who are we to judge?

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:41:56 AM PDT

    •  As usual (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Your insight is sharp. Not a day goes by when I don't wonder how this diverse country of mine, yours, and ours, became the most religiously fundamentalist of the western democracies. I simply don't get it.  

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

      by voicemail on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:58:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some people are always going to be desirous (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LaFeminista, Chi, OnlyWords

        of controlling other people, if only because their deficits make it impossible to do for themselves. The problem with this impulse to control others is that others, especially the self-directed, do not want to be controlled and resent the effort. Moreover, the resentment makes them uncooperative and even obstructive. So, the risk of generating resentment needs to be mitigated and one way of doing that is by re-direction. That is, if someone or some other entity can be identified as the controlling agent, then the resentment can be lessened to the point where the individual can be persuaded to serve. That's where the ephemeral deity comes in. Over time and time and time again deities have proved valuable motivators for the proponents of social control. The secular nation state has proved less effective. We have the proponents of "godless communism" as evidence of failure.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:32:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  someone has to judge (0+ / 0-)

      because we have to collectively figure out how the revolution is to unfold.

      And you dont do that without coming to judgments about what is right and what is wrong, as individuals and as collectives/nations.

      No one's, yours, mine, America's or anyone else's hands are clean, so if being free of sin is what is required to be able to judge or engage in judgment, then you enter a moral relativism arena that I don't believe you or I or anyone here have any interest in being in.

      The trick it seems to me is recognizing that as you judge, you are also being judged and to be willing to moderate your own behavior as you are willing to seek others to moderate theirs.

    •  who are we to judge what... slavery? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NedSparks, OnlyWords, gramofsam1

      yeah I'm gonna go ahead and sit in judgment on that topic.  sue me.

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:48:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Judging other cultures; our own, I'm quite happy (0+ / 0-)

        to judge; then if others see it as a model they are welcome to follow it.

        As for slavery it is alive and well [adapted to modern ways of life] around the globe, from the sweat shops in Bangladesh to New York.

        "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

        by LaFeminista on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:14:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ehhhhh... I'm seeing the "American Slaves were (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina, NedSparks, OnlyWords, gramofsam1

          valuable so they were better treated" bullshit I see so often in that article.

          color me unimpressed.  I fucking hate when people downplay or pretty up what happened to MY ancestors to make a point about what's happening now.  

          again, sue me.

          This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

          by mallyroyal on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:18:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes it is well known I am a proponent of slavery (0+ / 0-)

            Ye gawds I cant work out what upset you in my comment, it was about the current changes in other parts of the world and nothing to do with our own revolution. Lead by example not by might is all I said.

            i know of no country where slavery is legal.

            I suggest you read the first sentence of my initial comment.

            "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

            by LaFeminista on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:27:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  it wasn't YOU, it's the argument that pisses me (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OnlyWords, NedSparks, JDsg, gramofsam1


              like so, from your link:

              In the United States before the Civil War, the average slave cost the equivalent of about fifty thousand dollars. I'm not sure what the average price of a slave is today, but it can't be more than fifty or sixty dollars.

              Such low prices influence how the slaves are treated. Slave owners used to maintain long relationships with their slaves

              just part of the family, right? fucking bullshit.  they used to kill or sell off slaves at the drop of a fucking hat.  the only time this "value" came into play was when they chased escaped slaves.

              wanna ask me HOW I know?  this isn't an academic exercise for some.

              This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

              by mallyroyal on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:39:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again my initial comment didn't even mention (0+ / 0-)


                Again modern or the trans Atlantic slave trade are an abomination no matter what the financial transactions happen to be, from what I have see human life is pretty undervalued today. Especially when the good old US of A is doing the bombing.

                My original comment concerned

                Our history has some real low-lights
                We are on a retrograde course with respect to certain liberties.
                We have a long way to go.
                I hear too many judgements of other cultures [no not the slave trade] with little or no knowledge of the culture they are judging. Sharia law! It is far more complicated than that, and will take longer than a tea party rally against furriners for it to change.

                I cant understand your initial reply to my first comment.

                "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

                by LaFeminista on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:54:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  alright fair enough I may have been a little (0+ / 0-)

                  quick on the draw regarding your FIRST comment.

                  when pressed though, you sure sounded like the dude in the maher clip, linking something that [seemed to me] tried to explicitly downplay the thransatlantic slave trade.

                  I had MAJOR problems with that, and still do.

                  This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                  by mallyroyal on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:01:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Curiously, we actually have (0+ / 0-)

      falling Christian Fundamentalism and the rest. Pew Forum has the statistics on this.

      But as they become a smaller part of the population, some of them get louder and nastier to try to make up for it or even to deny that it is happening. It is called Cognitive Dissonance, originally documented in the book When Prophecy Fails.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:34:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think Cooke is being taken defferently than... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    he intended.  What I heard him saying was the American revolution produced a stable government which has gone on to high mark for newly formed governments during the past 200 years.  He was not saying it was perfect.

    If you are smart enough to positively know the climate is not being affected by humans, then you are also smart enough to develop a fusion reactor which runs solely from water and air….so get your ass moving!

    by quiet in NC on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:07:57 AM PDT

    •  I think what Cooke intended was (10+ / 0-)

      obvious.   A revolution that kept the white, entitled (by their wealth) males in power was obviously a wonderful revolution.  

      What I heard him saying was that keeping the status quo that he believes is right is good.   Other people having the right to see things differently is not so right.

      Don't misinterpret.  The notion of theocracy is one I find repulsive, no matter what religion the theocrats claim to follow.   Two hundred+ yearsago, the women of this country, as well of the people of color, the people of poverty, were treated with some of the concepts of "sharia" law.  Women and children along with slaves were property.  It took well over one hundred years for those folks to get the right to do things like vote, own property.  Heck, I am only 67 and when I bought my first car, my father had to cosign my loan (even though I was already making more money than him).  I had a friend that had to get a lawyer to help her obtain a mortgage as a single woman.  

      We, (those of us who believe that the ideal of this country and its constitution are good things worth fighting for), are still engaged in battles for things like equal pay for equal work; fair voting laws enforced; the rights of the poor not to be stolen by the oligarchs.  

      I think Cooke clearly believed what he said.  And to me, what he was saying was that the American revolution was a good thing because it basically just took the power from one group of white anglo males and gave it to another group of white anglo males.

      “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

      by Jjc2006 on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:20:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he was saying that it was imperfect but (0+ / 0-)

        set the stage for further progress which is now much more inclusive. That is literally what he said.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:03:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But he was denying that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, OnlyWords, gramofsam1

          any revolution in those parts of the world that are not white and/or Christian can be compared to the wonderfulness of the 1776 revolution of white males against white males who while winning, adopted many of the same belief systems,  because they might/will/can impose sharia.   My point was that two hundred years ago there was a type of sharia law imposed on females and males not of caucasian skin.  How is that different from what happened in 1776??  Yes the seeds of democracy were planted.  But for some of us, women, people of color, the fruits were still not fully realized two centuries later.   For many, the battle for equal rights continues to this day.

          I get that he accepted that the 1776 revolution was imperfect and that it sewed the seeds for the future.   But I also heard an open bias that said those "other" people cannot have a good revolution because in the future they will NOT fix their mistakes as did the people of the 1776 revolution.  In my view, the people who wrote the constitution, who did the revolution did not fix their mistakes.  It took the women, the people of color, demanding their rights to equal access, and the help of those white males who agreed with them, to push hard to start the change.  It took another war; it took lots of hard work, lots of loss of life nearly 200 years later to get some of the fixes.  The battle rages on.   Perhaps in places where the revolutionaries do not believe women or those who look and believe differently than they will still have to struggle for many years.  How is that any different?

          For me, it was clear what that jerk was saying.  
          Revolution where white skinned Christian males retained power = good revolution.  Revolution where "others (as in not white skinned male Christian males) gain power = not good.

          “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

          by Jjc2006 on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:03:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  your bolded point can be true (0+ / 0-)

        and also in no way be what he intended to convey.

        Yes, the beauty of the revolution is way overstated, but at the same time, there were beautiful kernels buried within that we all now today benefit from and which, when applied to all, envision a way of looking at freedom and equality that humans had rarely expressed in theory before and are STILL working today to fully expressed in practice.

        I think in a rush to minimize we forget just how far humanity has come in the last 200-300 years.  There's a long way to go, but the revolutionary ideas of equality and freedom in the American Revolution, while initially only applied to some white males, have grown and sprouted into something much much more.

        If you want a corollary, look at the Geneva Convention.  That sprung from the Lieber Code developed by Joseph Lieber, immediately after seeing the brutality of the Civil War.  Before, for all of human history, war had no real rules, after war had rules which were still brutal (see Dresden, see Hiroshima) but then those rules developed, grew and became what we have today which are light-years better than what we had even in WWII.

        Yes, battles remain, but we are here now because of what came before, and to deny that PART of that was those white males 200+ years ago is simply ignoring history, just like denying that it wasn't magnificently flawed and unfair at the beginning would also be denying history.

    •  If that were true (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, radmul, OnlyWords, gramofsam1

      A. He would have said admitted Reid's point was valid, that said constitution had numerous flaws.

      B. He wouldn't intentionally characterize the American Revolution as bloodless:
      Just go back and read his initial statement: "You have this revolution in America in which the British fight the British and then they codify classical liberal values into a constitution and it’s great. But that’s not how it goes down normally. Normally there is bloodshed and ..." . Seriously Charlie? In the American revolution there was just fighting, but in 'normal' revolutions there's bloodshed? Face-palm. The bald-faced dishonesty is stunning.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:02:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is perfecly possible to construe what he said (0+ / 0-)

        to mean that there is much bloodshed in other revolutions after the war of liberation ends.

        Which would be correct for the French Revolution and the Terror, or India/Pakistan independence and the Communal Violence, or any Communist takeover, with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, and Pol Pot as probably the worst examples.

        Which is, however, incorrect for the US, considering slavery, the Civil War, and genocide of Native Americans. Or how about 30,000 annual gun deaths last year, and more mass shootings than the rest of the world put together? Among other things.

        There is a point in there. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights did lay a groundwork for further progress, and few countries did even that well until much later.

        But there is also a major exception. The Eighty Years War of the Netherlands vs. the Spanish Empire established Freedom of Conscience and some important aspects of economic freedom long before the American Revolution. (Nobody expected the banishment of the Spanish Inquisition.)

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:54:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  he intended to ignore slavery, which is why (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, radmul, NedSparks, OnlyWords, gramofsam1

      he called its insertion into the discussion "cheap."

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:49:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If that were all, no problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Then he would have agreed with Joy Reid. But instead he got huffy, calling it a "cheap shot" and trying to defend himself.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:38:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Joy Reid (11+ / 0-)


    May today be greater than yesterday, and tomorrow be greater than both! Go Ravens!

    by secret38b on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:14:53 AM PDT

  •  Joy was taking deep breaths (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mokurai, gramofsam1

    on a whole host of subjects last night. I actually think just letting the blowhards talk does great damage to their f-ed up positions & exposes their assholeness quite nicely.

    Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up. A. A. Milne

    by hulibow on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:29:41 AM PDT

  •  Jesus, There Wasn't ANY American Revolution. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laker, skrekk, Catte Nappe, Chi, OnlyWords, stevemb

    We seceded. Nobody had a thought about overthrowing the Crown.

    Also for the record, it was the greatest combination of Constitution plus astronomical surpluses of resources, waste capacity, territory and isolation from enemies in history.

    One of those things gave us an economy of wealth concentration and bubbles & depressions every few years for our entire history, except for one 50 year period. The other 3 kept the one thing from destroying the country within the first generation or two.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:38:26 AM PDT

    •  And it left the colonial governments fully intact, (0+ / 0-)

      right down to their theocratic nuts & bolts.    Revolution is indeed a mischaracterization.

      •  Only if you don't include the Constitution and (0+ / 0-)

        Bill of Rights as part of "The American Revolution," which strikes me as silly since there was such continuity in the cast of characters.   Prior to that broader revolution, you had a constitutional monarchy with an established Church in England and some colonies but no written constitution and no representation of the American colonies in the Monarch's Parliament.  

        Post-broad "Revolution":

        Written constitution; written bill of rights, including separation of church and state and, for the time, radical separation of the executive and judicial functions; aristocratic titles and hereditary political power forbidden; elected executive; elected representation in both legislative houses, even if indirect in one.  

              The Revolution sure wasn't an overthrow of the existing socioeconomic structure.  Hell, the Constitution was put into place in part to prevent such a revolution (see Daniel Shays).  But it was hardly just a "secession."

        "If you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- M. Twain

        by Oliver St John Gogarty on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:41:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except that on a day-to-day basis the government (0+ / 0-)

          that matters is the state government (especially at the time), and those didn't really change with the adoption of the federal constitution.    Most still had theocratic aspects.   The bill of rights didn't even apply to the states until long after the 14th Amendment was adopted.

          Secession does indeed seem to be the appropriate analogy, especially since the southern states repeated the same pattern a few decades later by keeping the state governments intact and creating a new "improved" federal structure.

    •  I think you neglect the indigenous population (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      when you claim the isolation from enemies. Stealing the land from the natives in the Ohio valley, an act that the crown had prohibited was a significant factor in the American revolution and the travesty of manifest destiny going forward.

  •  My jaw was on the floor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that British assclown needed to be smacked down by someone more ferocious.  

    How dare that pseudo-intellectual Cooke lecture actual Americans of any color to accept slavery as an evolutionary stage of a democracy?  Did France ever allow domestic slavery? And yet that was the model for our Founding Racists, ER "Fathers."

    Perverted racist minds all think alike. Thanks for calling this out and diarying it. Maher should have given Joy Reid some backup. And Greenwald too. WTF?

    “I wore black because ... it's still my symbol of rebellion -- against a stagnant status quo, against our hypocritical houses of God, against people whose minds are closed to others' ideas.” -- Johnny Cash

    by RocketJSquirrel on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:52:27 AM PDT

  •  that blind spot shows up here too though (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nosleep4u, Chi, NedSparks, gramofsam1

    I seethe at comments that proclaim "The American Dream" dead, as if it died recently, and as if it was way better in the past.

    yeah folks think about Black people when you say that shit.  seriously. THINK ABOUT IT.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:54:07 AM PDT

    •  One Aristocracy for Another... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mallyroyal, skrekk, OnlyWords, gramofsam1

      THAT was the American Revolution. The founders made it hard to change the laws, hard to see a pathway to universal voting, hard to make slavery illegal, hard to make the system flexible to debtors and farmers, hard to make it work at all.

      They intended, and they succeeded, in keeping power, land and wealth for themselves, and it has taken 235 years of CONSTANT struggle to make a slightly more perfect union, because the ONE thing useful the founders wrote into law is that it COULD and SHOULD change. (Antonin Scalia and the Roberts Court is the notable exception along with the Roger Taney Court.)

      The genetic code of the US Constitution is based on a difficult, contentious, creaky, obtuse and barrier-ridden mechanism of adaptation to change, and that is the only thing we should thank them for. Its a huge gift, but it is agonizing.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:33:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A large part of the problem, in a nutshell (0+ / 0-)
    I am sure Joy Reid could have been much sharper in hitting back at this prick. It is evident that she tempered her response. After-all, she wants to be invited on this show and others again and again.
    Time for the gloves to come off? I think so, but YMMV...

    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

    by lunachickie on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:32:09 AM PDT

  •  The other astonishing section - Greenwald (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laker, skrekk, Chi

    Who simply ate Maher's lunch on every point concerning the Middle East, Benghazi and related matters. Greenwald has a column up at the Guardian summarizing the exchanges. Video below is basically the full segment.

    The resulting exchange, which was somewhat contentious and sustained for a show like this, can be seen on the recorder below. The segment begins at the 4:45 mark and our specific exchange begins a couple of minutes after that (the first segment on this video is a debate on whether Benghazi is now a "scandal" in light of newly released documents). Our exchange ends up, I believe, capturing the crux of this debate - which is essentially similar to the one I had recently with Sam Harris and friends - rather well:
    Cooke during the "what the hell is Benghazi-gate about" segment never answered the core question of just precisely where the scandal is found. He prattles on about the media ignoring the issue - yet never takes the opportunity to name the root issue raising hackles. Of course, he cannot, for there is no there, there.

    Greenwald though, he was on fire.

  •  I found last nights show painful to watch at times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NedSparks, gramofsam1

    Cooke was an ass, but Greenwald didn't exactly shine either.

  •  Leave it to Greenwald to try and incriminate Obama (0+ / 0-)

    and indirectly agree with Republicans that Obama and the administration somehow didn't tell the truth.

    This guy has a anti-Obama obsession that he just can't shake. He's being doing it for more than five years and the fact that Obama was reelected President most goad him to no end.

  •  I forget who it was who said that the surest (0+ / 0-)

    measure of intelligence was the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in consciousness simultaneously without feeling a pressing need to dismiss either or to reach a premature, artificial synthesis.*  Cooke is obviously a complete dope by that criterion.  A "cheap point"?  Even "Jaysus wept" doesn't suffice.  What an insufferable ass.

            *Keats described this as "negative capacity" -- "that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact and reason" -- and said it was Shakespeare's greatest ability as a dramatist.  But I'm pretty sure some later psychologist turned it into a definition of intelligence.  I just can't remember who, although, going with the base rates, I'd guess Freud.  Anybody know?

    "If you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- M. Twain

    by Oliver St John Gogarty on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:14:24 PM PDT

  •  that guy was (0+ / 0-)

    the smartest sounding idiot I have ever heard. . .must be the british accent.

  •  Maher has a huge blindspot.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When it comes to islam. He keeps up the same old crap of somehow the muslims are inherently more violent and prone to bloodshed than other religions like christianity. He is just willfully ignorant of the underlying geopolitical reasons behind the violence perpetrated by muslims over the past few decades. I keep waiting for someone to specifically point out to him how a christian Germany systematically exterminated 6 million jews about 70 years ago and a christian Rawanda hacked 800k of their own countrymen to death with machetes a little over a decade ago.

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:34:32 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site