MSNBC Host Objects To Description Of Paul Ryan As “Hard Worker”

hqdefaultMSNBC 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””

  1. DBQ:

    You did this earlier, proposing that if governments could ban individuals from possessing weapons, then they should be able to outlaw gay marriage and other forms of behavior.

    The right to bear arms is fundamentally different in nature than any other right. The unrestricted right to bear arms implicates public safety directly and immediately in a way that none of other rights do not, and often leads to violence and/or death and injury. Guns pose a public health risk that gay marriage and gay sex do not, therefore guns in our society demand some type of common sense regulation to reduce the risks.

    The error you make is the one you accuse me of, of picking and choosing which parts of the constitution to follow. When you cite the Second Amendment,you focus on the second half of the sentence, leaving out the part about a well-regulated militia, which is what the Founders actually deemed necessary. Gun fanatics never want to admit that part of the Amendment, so they never have to deal with it. But it’s there and it allows for regulation.

    Furthermore, there’s more to the Constitution than the Second Amendment. Aside from setting the trajectory for the Constitution, the preamble adjures us to provide for the welfare of the people and reasonable gun regulation does just that. I proposed that allowing communities to decide this issue for themselves is reasonable; militias were community social organizations in origin. Not all communities are going to decide that banning weapons is right for them. As I point out to Rick above, not all communities that do decide to enact bans are going to carry them out the same way.

    It’s also worth mentioning that the right to bear arms isn’t the only right guaranteed in the constitution. You seem to be saying that it’s the only right that cannot be limited in any way. There’s a right to free speech, yet we don’t allow slanderous and defaming speech, or fighting words -speech deemed to inevitably lead to violence – nor do we allow dangerous types of speech in the interest of public safety, like shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. None of our rights under the constitution are unfettered.

    What I find interesting is that many gun fanatics rave about their rights, but the rights “coin” has a backside, and that is “responsibilities”, as in rights and responsibilities. I never hear anyone discuss their responsibilities under the Second Amendment, unless it’s to lock and always be loaded.

    SteveG thinks that criminals should not lose the right to possess weapons under the constitution. Is that you’re position too?

    What about background checks?

  2. Bob Stone, I have spoken about returning to college in the late 90’s to get my teaching certification. It was frightening to see just how education had changed from when I got my BA 25 years prior. I have lamented here many times how Shakespeare is no longer taught because he is “sexist.” The intellectual feminist[must be differentiated from the mostly vapid feminists], Camille Paglia speaks eloquently on the destruction of Liberal Arts for a PC agenda. Good video. I don’t think some here would understand it, even if they took time off of watching TV reality shows to view it.

  3. I was at first thinking that the performance by T. Hall and Annie in this post was like the Captain and Tennille singing Muskrat love.

    But now I think it’s more like The Shaggs performing My Pal Foot Foot .
    Give it a listen.
    I think you’ll agree.

  4. T. Hall
    1, October 28, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    You and Rick seem to be making a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

    What does it say that Hall has made this comment multiple times with zero basis in reality? In fact it was he who brought up the subject of grammar which he now tries to push off on others after realizing how small it showed him to be.

    I point this out because I think it says something more about him. In multiple instances he has repeated false statements as if the repetition transformed them from false to true. This works in academic politics since they’ve driven out and/or intimidated any opposition that would be motivated to point out the false statements are in fact false. But in the real world one pays a price in credibility for constantly repeating false statements.

  5. Gosh, i guess James Brown is really exceptionally super-racist for saying he is “The Hardest Working Man in Show Business”.

    Dang, but it’s hard to keep up with all the new racisms, hatery hates and microagressions.

  6. Feminist Groups Say Using Social-Media App Yik Yak Without Seeing Mean Words Is a Civil Right

    Of all the bullshi+, pro-censorship activism swirling about college campuses these days, this might take the proverbial cake: a group of 72 activist groups—including major women’s-rights players like the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Organization for Women and other big-name orgs, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National LGBTQ Task Force—are asking the U.S. Department of Education to demand more monitoring and regulation of the popular app Yik Yak by college administrators….

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/26/deliver-us-from-yik-yak

    See also “National coalition in favor of campus censorship”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/26/national-coalition-in-favor-of-campus-censorship/

  7. Thank you, Bob Stone.

    Through the video you posted, you reveal that the true, primary goal of the University of California for Little

    Asians et al. is not education but ideological indoctrination.

    Who has nullified the founding documents, engaged in social engineering and taken over America

    since the 19th amendment?

  8. T. Hall
    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.

    No reasonable person believes criminal penalties for ownership is anything other than confiscation. What an absurd position to think that because you choose to not use the word it doesn’t apply.

    It is interesting you keep pretending everyone else has the comprehension problem as if we’re somehow forbidden from understanding what you prefer we didn’t understand.

  9. Seriously, I’ve seen some brilliant people give you all manner of perfect explanations in the past when you were mistaken about whether an ad hominem was made. But I’ll try as best I can to explain it simply for you this one time.

    If I were to say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about because you nitpick; You don’t know anything about politics and government, or the Second Amendment because you’re a nitpicker”, those would be ad hominem attacks.

    In the case we’re talking about, nitpicking is the issue; I’m speaking to the issue of how nitpicking relates to one’s character. You were nitpicking about a typo I had made. Therefore, I made a statement of fact, or opinion , if you please. Notice I never said that you wrong about the issue of grammar because you were nitpicking. That would be ad hominem.

    I have no idea if you cut your toenails at the dinner table, but if you did, it would not be ad hominem to point out that cutting your toenails at the dinner table is rude behavior. If I said you can’t cook worth a shite because you trim your toenails at the dinner table, then that would be ad hominem, too.

    I notice you nitpick about typos a lot, such as when Prof. Turley makes them in his posts. This must be a pet peeve of yours, but I think you’re missing the fact that many of us are often busy throughout the day, or the bantering becomes heated and we’re sometimes passionately expressing our thoughts, or just in a hurry, and we’re subject to making mistakes and not taking a moment to proof read our thoughts.

    You and Rick seem to be making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. In fact, it’s really ad hominem.

    1. Hall – you still cannot back up that nitpicking is a character flaw. BTW, you love to pick on the character flaws of others, at least the perceived ones. But just to make your job more difficult, there are people who are professional grammarians. As a former teacher you always check for grammar and content. That habit never goes away. I have been known to correct the spelling on the daily menu.

  10. .I said governments should have the right to ban possession of weapons within their jurisdictions in keeping with conservative doctrine that small, local governments are best able to regulate themselves.

    Ok. Let us assume you really mean this in principle. That small local governments can make rules and regulations that defy the Constitution if they feel like it. Since the 2nd Amendment clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed is a quite clear statement.

    If you are good with this infringement and violation of the Constitution in the name of small government, then you should be good with these concepts as well.

    Local government can ban gay marriage. Can allow segregated seating in restaurants and segregated hotel accommodations. Can ban articles from the local newspaper and has the right to screen the articles before publication. Can go into your house at any time for any reason to examine your computer and other data. Can force you to house and feed the local police in your house.

    Good with these….right?

    You don’t get to pick and choose which articles of the Constitution can be ignored or violated because you agree or disagree with the concepts.

  11. Schulte- “Hall – prove that nitpicking is a character flaw is a statement of fact. Otherwise, it is an ad hominem attack.”

    LOL!! Sorry, I wasn’t picking up on the joke. I have to admit, you have a sneaky good sense of humor.

  12. Rick,

    Once again, your over-active imagination causes you to be wrong. I said governments should have the right to ban possession of weapons within their jurisdictions in keeping with conservative doctrine that small, local governments are best able to regulate themselves. That’s much different than a call for confiscation of weapons. Hint: Bans can be achieved a number of ways. For instance, weapons already in possession were grandfathered in under Chicago’s handgun ordinance. You can google it.

    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.

    You can go back and look at the record and try to pull up any statement of mine where I said anything about confiscating weapons the way I pulled up Olly’s own statements to prove he was dissembling. You find any such statement.

    Now, I know there’s a lot of nuance and detail and some big words in this comment, so you might want to study it before you go off half-jacked again. Frankly, habit of misinterpretation and consistently jumping to wrong conclusions only bolsters my contention that weapons should be banned.

  13. Schulte: Wrong once again. The declarative sentence, “Nitpicking is a character flaw”, is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem attack. You need to do your homework.

    1. Hall – prove that nitpicking is a character flaw is a statement of fact. Otherwise, it is an ad hominem attack.

  14. Yes it would be more difficult, but when things are harder, you get more done. There is no time to be introspective when you are worried about making it to tomorrow.

    @ Jim22

    Exactly. It is difficult to get all twitterpated about imaginary slights, insults, words that might be triggering etc etc, when your day to day existence is to try to get by, work and survive.

    When people have time to dwell on whether saying someone is a “hard worker” is racist or whether the term “devil’s food cake” is racist or whether using the word “too” is a patriarchal slam at feminism……they have entirely too much (oops did it again ‘too’) time on their hands and their life must be too easy in order to be able to focus on such idiocy.

    I’m pretty sure during the Great Depression, my grandparents were not concerned about such trivialities as whether their broadband (if they had such luxuries) was fast enough or if eating bacon would increase the risk of colon cancer by less than 1%. They were working to just HAVE bacon to eat, smashing tin cans to patch the holes in their roof, and stuffing old newspapers into their kids shoes to get one more year of use out of them and to be able to hand down to the younger child when the shoes got too tight for the older kids. No time for fake outrage over dopey things. Survival was the order of the day.

  15. DBQ,

    The interesting thing about what James Quinn writes about is that the future history is something we really can’t avoid and that we really can’t predict what the trigger is. Just like he proposes that the past three revolutions no one would have predicted them happening before they actually took place. I guess it is the Monday morning quarterback idea. I welcome the revolution idea since if I survive it, I would like to be involved with a more positive independent part of history instead of the lazy, spiraling out of control era of today.

    Yes it would be more difficult, but when things are harder, you get more done. There is no time to be introspective when you are worried about making it to tomorrow.

  16. Annie,

    It’s somewhat humorous how the likes of you bring the discussion to a second grade level and when I join, I’m the one you call out. Wear that hypocrite hat proudly.

Comments are closed.