MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry has drawn fire after objecting to a seemingly innocuous reference by a guest to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) as a “hard worker.” Harris-Perry suggested that the use of this term for someone like Ryan is insulting to people who once picked cotton or mothers without health care.
Harris-Perry offered her correction with the guest Alfonso Aguilar, Executive Director of the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, after Aguilar said If there’s somebody who is a hard worker when he goes to Washington, it’s Paul Ryan.”
Harris-Perry warned “[I] want us to be super careful when we use the language ‘hard worker’ . . . Because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.” She then continued by noting that “in the context of relative privilege, I just want to point out, that when you talk about work-life balance and being a hard worker, the moms who don’t have health care who are working, we don’t call them hard workers. We call them failures, people who are sucking off the system. Really, y’all do! That’s really what you do!”
Aguilar objected to the point and said “This is very unfair. I feel that we cannot generalize about the Republican Party.”
I am not clear about how many people actually call working mothers “failures” but it is not clear why we cannot recognize hard-working people in different facets of life, including Republican leaders.
169 thoughts on “MSNBC Host Objects To Description Of Paul Ryan As “Hard Worker””
Thankfully, these last two don’t stay around long.
Hard worker alright…
Dennis Hastert goes from speaker to felon, but his dark past still a mystery
So now we know why the GOP tolerated the gay Congressman who liked to doodle boys. They were all up in arms against Frank and Stubbs, yet they were the SAME.
Most of the time I’ve asked, the people who despise Fox News have never watched it. They’ve won top rating for many years now.
I really enjoy Megan Kelly. No matter who she’s interviewing, they are in the hot seat. She doesn’t give soft ball interviews, plays devil’s advocate, and she never lets her guests run her over. She brings on Liberals all the time, including those with close ties to Hillary Clinton who defend her to the death. I think if people watched an entire episode of her show, they might like it.
In any case, if you don’t like Fox News, then you are hypocritical for liking RIL. Most of the stories he discusses have also been covered by Fox, because they cover world events. They cover the same stories, so it’s a little hypocritical to call one “Faux”.
The overwhelming majority of media has liberal bias, but apparently having one conservative news outlet is one too many.
Darren – well said.
My handicapped relative who died from brain tumors was on Medicaid. It was disappointing what it didn’t cover – bandages, liquid medicine for her feeding tube (they demanded they use cheaper pills and grind them up even when her doctor wrote a note that it would clog her tube and require surgery, constantly). And that was years ago. Since all the recent cuts due to Obamacare, it covers even less now.
I think everyone is clear that there are truly deserving people on public assistance, and there are those who take advantage of or defraud the system. Claiming that everyone dumps all Medicaid users in the latter is disingenuous.
I’ve encountered this myself. When I’ve supported the work requirement, or even talking about the requirement, I’ve been told I hate the poor. When I talk about fraud, I’ve been told I hate the poor. When I talked about school free lunches and breakfasts being given to all kids of all socioeconomic status, further draining our depleted education budget, I was told I hate the poor. It’s just a false logic gambit to avoid talking about the problems.
The PC police should be amusing anecdotes, if no one took them seriously. But they actually do! These inane journalists or activists keep trying to excise and monitor our language, which is defeating to critical thinking.
Who gets to decide what the definition of “hard working” is? Is it only a share cropper picking cotton 75 years ago? What about the neurosurgeon who survived his internship by almost ODing on caffeine, was up to his ears in student loan debt, missed every milestone of his children’s lives because he was doing marathon brain surgeries. Is he not a hard worker? What about the person working 3 part time jobs to make ends meet? The stock broker? Construction worker? What about the student with 16 units taking biochem engineering and string theory?
She does not get to decide how to define this term. This appears to be a ploy to introduce the race card and sexism.
The majority of people should have laughed off her comment.
He works less than 100 days a year. By my definition, that’s not working- it’s a hobby.
“Lewis v. US, 455 US 55, 1980”
How does Heller work in with the Lewis case? Did you forget that one?
“Why would any Black person have a picture of slavery on her wall?”
Seriously, I believe she said it’s to remind her of what hard work is. I think African-Americans should hang pictures of blacks being beaten for demanding the right to vote. Sure black lives matter, but what about black votes?
Personally, Sandi, I don’t care for her commentary because she almost never holds blacks accountable for their actions, like the Black Lives Matter protesters who disrupted Bernie Sanders campaign appearance or President Obama’s use of drones to execute American citizens or his continuation of surveillance or his stance on Edward Snowden.
But I don’t think she’s an embarrassment nor should she be fired for her commentary. Maybe for her ratings, but not her commentary
Her comments and Black Lives Matter are fueling a whole new generation of people who fear Black people.
The video of the student ignoring the instructions of the teacher, principal, and police officer is an example of the results of lack of respect shown by Black Lives Matter.
I had to watch the clip three times because she talks so fast I could not understand her. Why would any Black person have a picture of slavery on her wall? How about Martin Luther King or Obama?
She needs to be fired. Then take time to grow up! Find people whose ancestors came from Ireland or Italy. Or Eastern Europe.
She is an embarassment to Black people!
I knew you’d double down.
Here you go, point by point:
See those first few words in the first sentence of mine you quote, “There have also been….” That particular passage was describing how some communities have enacted their ordinances, not all of them. I informed you of several options. You chose to ignore the reasonable portions in favor of selectively quoting me. A little advice: if you’re going to selectively quote someone, you might want to selectively leave out all the bits that prove you’re wrong.
As far as the typo goes…you’re ranting gibberish. Look upthread and you’d see you’re wrong, yet again.
The ABA is a trade group representing the interests of lawyers regardless of political affiliation. The fact that the person holding such a high profile position within the legal community means that his statements will come under a great deal of scrutiny. As an attorney holding an important position, you can imagine he would choose his words carefully so that no one could…you know…come back and prove he was wrong. Did you really need a clue for that one? Really?
But hey! If you need a refresher:
For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby’s distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crime.
Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot L. Richardson, Edward H. Levi, Griffin B. Bell, and Benjamin R. Civiletti, former Attorneys General for the United States, The Washington Post, October 3, 1992
See all those names of people following the statement above? In case you don’t know who they are they represent both sides of the political divide, having served in Democratic and Republican administrations. Back then, public service meant something.
Too political, not scholarly enough? Try this:
These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties…. The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia.’”
Lewis v. US, 455 US 55, 1980
(Pssst. Rick: Lewis v. US followed by numbers means it’s a court decision, in this case a big one. Goooooogle, gooooooogle.)
And whatever about whatever it is your rambling about at the end. You wouldn’t know a big deal if someone gave you a hint. It’s amazing that fail to recognize proof when it’s presented to you.
Here’s the last hint before I check out and get ready for the World Series: Stop embarrassing yourself.
1, October 28, 2015 at 3:56 pm
There have also been voluntary turn-ins; people were free to ignore them but they were subject to criminal sanctions if they were caught in possession following the deadline for turning in weapons. Those are two ways of allowing communities to enact weapons bans without conducting a systematic program of confiscation.
T Hall’s claim: that laws mandating people turn in their weapons or face criminal penalties are not confiscation.
When pointed out this is in fact confiscation he tries to distract and insult. Such juvenile tactics are boring but unfortunately they seem to be his only options since intellectual honesty eludes him.
You are the one who first made mention of my typo in this thread.
Notice he changed the point from grammar to typo in order to make this assertion, as well as omitting the context My reference to his typo was simply to note how minor his grammar criticism was yet he’s insisted on multiple comments this was something I initiated. Again he demonstrates the tacit of lying even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
L. Stanley Chauvin, President, American Bar Association, ABA Journal, 1990
I don’t find it surprising at all he rests his case entirely on the pronouncement of the head of a political organization rather than on deeper scholarship.
One way you can tell that is by the way everyone treated it like a big deal
It was a big deal because most people understood it likely the courts would eliminate our rights via judicial fiat not because they believed that interpretation correct. It’s strange what the left considers “proof”.
“But isn’t this great music?!”
It certainly is. Thanks, Annie.
Take it whichever way you want to, I don’t care. But isn’t this great music?!
Do you mean you enjoy appropriating black culture as part of your white privilege?
Oh I don’t know, I think this song is far more fitting.
Once again you’re wrong. Guns that were grandfathered in under Chicago’s ordinance were not subject to confiscation under any circumstance. I swear, haven’t you ever heard of google? It could save you a lot of embarrassment.
And, once againYou are the one who first made mention of my typo in this thread. It’s a fact, look up above. I’d do it myself, but I’d prefer to show you this gem where you got into trouble:
The Supreme Court had several occasions to review state regulation of firearms in the context of the Second Amendment. A review of these cases reveals that the courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment relates merely, solely, totally, and only to the unhampered regulation of a state militia. It does not confer an individual right.
L. Stanley Chauvin, President, American Bar Association, ABA Journal, 1990
My full response proving you utterly wrong is too long to quote, but it’s all back there in the Albuquerque thread. To sum up briefly: Heller fundamentally changed the historic interpretation of the Second Amendment. One way you can tell that is by the way everyone treated it like a big deal (That’s the hint, Ricky). I’m not sure what your second sentence means, but the question of individual possession of firearms had indeed been considered a number of times in our history. I cited about a dozen cases where it had been the issue. Go back and look. Academic scholarship actually shows that the Second Amendment never applied to individuals right to possess weapons before Heller.
Now, break out your box of crickets. Or double down, I don’t care
But I’m sure you mean ‘communal’ responsibilities.
Whatever that means.
“I never hear anyone discuss their responsibilities under the Second Amendment”
Comments are closed.