Hamburgers, Salmon, and corn on the grill here. What's on your grill?

David Broder is insufferable. Suddenly Joe Sestak is equally far to the left as Pat Toomey is far to the right? Give me a break. Is Joe Sestak a member of the House Progressive Caucus or the DLC-inspired New Democrat Coalition? Does he have a voting record in the liberal third of the party or in the conservative half? Did he not endorse Hillary Clinton for president? Was he not recruited by Rahm Emanuel?

Joe Sestak is a solid Democrat who is liberal on most, but not all, issues. He isn't a Blue Dog, but neither is he a progressive firebrand. He's about what you expect when you think of an average Democrat in Congress.

Pat Toomey, on the other hand, is more conservative than Rick Santorum. Does anyone want to argue that Rick Santorum was in the moderate half of the Republican caucus?

Wank on. Wank off.

Here's a quote from 19th-Century abolitionist Theodore Parker:

"I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice."

Does that sound familiar? It should. It was often paraphrased by Martin Luther King Jr. in his speeches. For example, in the coda of his 1965 Our God is Marching On! speech in Montgomery, Alabama (delivered after the police split open John Lewis's skull on the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma), King made reference to it.

And so I plead with you this afternoon as we go ahead: remain committed to nonviolence. Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding. We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience. And that will be a day not of the white man, not of the black man. That will be the day of man as man. (Yes)

I know you are asking today, "How long will it take?" (Speak, sir) Somebody’s asking, "How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright-eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?" Somebody’s asking, "When will wounded justice, lying prostrate on the streets of Selma and Birmingham and communities all over the South, be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?" Somebody’s asking, "When will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the nocturnal bosom of this lonely night, (Speak, speak, speak) plucked from weary souls with chains of fear and the manacles of death? How long will justice be crucified, (Speak) and truth bear it?" (Yes, sir)

I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, (Yes, sir) however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, (No sir) because "truth crushed to earth will rise again." (Yes, sir)

How long? Not long, (Yes, sir) because "no lie can live forever." (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (All right. How long) because "you shall reap what you sow." (Yes, sir)
How long? (How long?) Not long: (Not long)

Truth forever on the scaffold, (Speak)
Wrong forever on the throne, (Yes, sir)
Yet that scaffold sways the future, (Yes, sir)
And, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own.

How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (Not long) because:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; (Yes, sir)
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; (Yes)
He has loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword; (Yes, sir)
His truth is m rching on. (Yes, sir)
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; (Speak, sir)
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat. (That’s right)
O, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant my feet!
Our God is marching on. (Yeah)
Glory, hallelujah! (Yes, sir) Glory, hallelujah! (All right)
Glory, hallelujah! Glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on. [Applause]

So, Theodore Parker was the first to say that the arc of the moral universe in long but it bends towards justice, he just said it in a less concise manner than Dr. King. This is now being debated because the new Oval Office rug has some famous quotes woven into it that were selected by the president. One of them is an exact copy of King's version. There is no attribution for the quotes on the rug. It doesn't have King's name or Parker's name on it. Yet, for some reason Jaime Stiehm of the Washington Post is reporting otherwise.

King made no secret of the author of this idea. As a Baptist preacher on the front lines of racial justice, he regarded Parker, a religious leader, as a kindred spirit.

Yet somehow a mistake was made and magnified in our culture to the point that a New England antebellum abolitionist's words have been enshrined in the Oval Office while attributed to a major 20th-century figure.

Here's a snapshot of the Washington Post website:

Obviously, that headline is wrong. The rug carries no attribution and therefore cannot contain an error in attribution. As Stiehm notes, the quote on the rug from Abraham Lincoln's Gettsyburg Address ("government of the people, by the people and for the people") was also lifted from Theodore Parker. Some people can discuss the significance of Parker having two quotes on the Oval Office rug rationally without falsely accusing anyone of making a mistake of misattribution on only one of them. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was one of the most important speeches in our nation's history, but so was Martin Luther King's Our God is Marching On! speech. Both men made memorable statements riffing off phrasing first used by Parker. But only one of them is considered to be misattributed. Yet, neither of them are attributed on the rug.

It's true that most people think of King as the originator of the 'arc of the moral universe' language, but then so, too, do they think of Lincoln as the originator of the 'for the people' language.

When called on this, Ms. Steihm responded:

Joe, to your point, you cannot take the essence of a quotation and speak it in a speech, and call it yours! This is Theodore Parker's original language, concept, poetic prose. I am aware of everything you wrote to note, thanks, but found your tone left something to be desired. If you're the son of the writer, or if not - words belong to the writer/author/preacher who said them first. King surely revived and renewed Parker's longer lines - and I admire Obama tremendously, don't get me wrong. But I passionately believe the past can't get lost in translation - call it the history major in me. Hope this speaks to your concern.

Best wishes, Jamie

How could it possibly speak to our concerns? What are our concerns?

1. That the headline says there is an error on the rug, but the only possible error is in the understanding of some people who see the rug and don't realize that the quote, while actually true to King's words, was inspired by someone else.

2. That the article suggests there is an attribution on the rug when there is not.

3. That the article suggests the president has made some mistake ("For the record, Theodore Parker is your man, President Obama.")

4. That the Lincoln quote is treated as correctly attributed when it stands alone, just like the King quote.

So, if the job is to correct the record so the American people have a correct understanding of history, how is Stiehm doing in that task?

She may not be responsible for the headline, but she's responsible for the rest of it. And she provides no apology, but only smug dismissal of legitimate criticism. Too bad our tone isn't so polite.

Well, NFL teams had to cut down their rosters to 53 men today and a lot of people are now out of a job. We have our BooTrib fantasy football draft tomorrow, so if you are in the league, don't forget.

I'm not taking Ben Roethlisberger on principle, and I wish a lot of other people would make the same stand. He's lucky he's not in prison.

Do you have any predictions for the season? Mine is that the Cowboys aren't as good as everyone to think they will be.

Tony Blair's decision to go along with the invasion of Iraq destroyed his reputation, killed the Labour Party, discredited Blairism, and gave new life to the Tories. In other words, it was good news for conservatives. There is something odd about punishing the left for the sins of the right. After all, the Tories were more supportive of Blair's excellent adventure than his own party. But, hey, we're getting ready to do the same thing in this country, with people voting for people whose twisted worldview is impervious to evidence that their policies lead directly to economic catastrophe.

There's a fingernail-on-the-chalkboard feel to every one of these Gail Collins-David Brooks chats. Brooks is so clueless and Collins so indulging, it just makes me want to throw up. This week, it's 'David Brooks goes to the zoo' and reports back on the great spiritual yearning of your average Glenn Beck fan. When Collins gently tries to remind him that they're more pissed about being told to press '2' for Spanish when they call their bank, Brooks turns into an anthropologist.

People like those at last weekend’s rally want the Judeo-Christian ethic back, which sweetened and softened life on the frontier (physical or technological). And so they march. They are only vaguely aware of this value system. It is so entwined into their very nature, they can not step back and define it. But they feel it weakening.

Actually, they feel a pang of anger when asked whether they speak a language other than English. They feel unmoored when they see a black man in the White House. The patriotic, nationalist, and xenophobic energy of the Tea Party movement may be dripping with faux-sentimentality but it isn't primarily religious in nature. It's ethnic. Beck's rally may have had a more spiritual tone since it was billed as restoring misplaced values and Beck gave a religious speech. But the Tea Party movement is not about socially conservative values. It's about economics and it's about the browning of America. Republican candidates are responding by toning down the god and gays talk and focusing on joblessness and the deficit and immigration.

If Brooks can't see this, he's either dishonest or clueless. And Collins is useless for indulging this knucklehead instead of ridiculing his stupid analysis.

Yes, it's true. Joe Miller, Alaska's GOP nominee for the Senate after a surprising, some would say miraculous victory over Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary, has revealed that the Supreme Being is indeed raising money for Miller's campaign. While rumors have circulated in the past that God was a Republican, this is the first time a major Republican candidate has admitted that the Big Kahuna himself has taken a more active role in American politics than merely giving his moral support to Republican candidates. From Miller's letter to his supporters dated August 29th:

We don't want to loose the momentumn [sic] of this great campaign!! We are going to get Joe Miller elected, it's just that for reasons we don't understand God wants us to have a waiting spell. :) We need to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves, and keep the campaign uplifted in constant prayer. In order for Joe to keep campaigning he needs funds. So far the Lord has always provided the money in this grass roots campaign, and this time God is going to use you to provide!

When reached for comment, God declined to answer any questions regarding the amounts of money he may or may not have provided to Miller, or whether any other Republican candidates have received God's financial backing. Like Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona who recently refused all comments to reporters regarding her remarks about be-headings in the Arizona desert, God has simply refused to answer any questions regarding his fund-raising efforts for the GOP.

Meanwhile, in a related story President Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs felt compelled to announce that the President maintains good relations with "The Lord" (as he is known to his friends) and is not an adherent to the heresy known as "Liberation Theology" despite allegations to the contrary by Fox news Host Glenn Beck:

The White House has been forced to state that President Barack Obama is a 'committed, mainstream Christian' after claims to the contrary by Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck. Mr Beck recently said that Mr Obama practiced a version of Christianity that was not recognised by most people, adding the president's 'liberation theology' was all about 'oppressors' and 'victims'. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked about Mr Beck's assertions at a press briefing today. Mr Gibbs said: 'I can only imagine where Mr Beck conjured that from.'

It was not known as of the date of this report whether Mr. Gibbs had cleared his remarks with God, or if this was merely a shameless attempt to curry favor with the Almighty. However, as of today, neither the President nor his spokespeople have commented on whether he or members of the Democratic party have received fund-raising assistance, directly or indirectly, from any member of the Trinity. In the past, Obama's speeches have been peppered with references to an awesome God, but Republicans have often been quick to accuse him of being a secret follower of Allah, The Lord's principal rival. Indeed, a recent poll by Newsweek confirmed that among Republicans ...

... 52 per cent said Barack Obama sided with fanatical Muslims who wanted to impose Sharia law around the world.

In addition, 59 per cent also said that Mr Obama favoured the interests of Muslims over other groups of Americans.

While Joe Miller has yet to call out the President as a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer, he has freely attacked the President as a "Socialist" which is a well recognized political code word among conservatives that Obama is anti-Christian, since all God is a free market capitalist in their view.

So what of God? Is he a capitalist? Is he a communist? Is he a God who would have people controlled like in Albania, or is he a God who favors risk and reward as in the United States?

The God I find in the Bible is a risk taker. He set Adam and Eve in the garden and gave them the right to choose -- allowing them to live with the consequences of their poor choices. Abraham, by contrast, chose faith and was rewarded for his risky obedience.

God finally risked all by allowing us to accept or decline his sacrifice on the cross.

God has made a significant investment in us, and he expects a return. But he gives us freedom and rewards as the risk taker. That is the essence of a true capitalist.

If such is the case, maybe God has made an investment in Joe Miller. Or maybe Joe Miller is a con artist trying to get gullible religious conservatives to contribute money to his campaign by claiming God is his primary "money man." As an infamous "News Organization" that shall not be named often says: "We report - You decide."

I think Chuck Hagel ought to know his party better than this. They aren't going to find a new center and this isn't a storm that is just going to blow through. A bunch of whack-a-doodles are going to get elected, some of them to six-year terms. And then they're going to nominate for president someone who is either certifiably insane or who pretends to be. That's what is going to happen. Michael Steele is going to be the most successful RNC chair in history. The Republicans will think they've found the secret elixir for winning power: Go crazy.

And the best outcome of it all will be if they only grow powerful enough to prevent us from tackling any problems rather than adding a whole new list of them.

Unless we turn things around in the next two months, that's what our future will bring.

I guess the reason that the Republicans are polling so well at the moment is almost entirely based on the pollsters estimate of likely differential turnout. That's what Public Policy Polling's Tom Jensen says anyway. If true, it gives me cause of optimism.

We can't change the economy, but we can rile up our own base. And we have plenty to be riled about once we focus on the campaign. Frankly, I chose July 1st as the day to put aside differences (for the most part) and focus on the positive, and I think a lot of progressive organizers and activists are still lobbying the White House. If our opinion leaders are not focused on the upcoming campaign, we shouldn't expect our rank-and-file to be focused on it either.

But, there is only so much we can do. We need help from the White House. That's why I've been harping on the economy lately. We need a showdown with the Republicans in Congress, and we need it to be over the economy. We also need some sweeteners to put everyone in a good mood. So, appoint Elizabeth Warren. And then make the Republicans obstruct on the economy, and throw an almighty fit about it.

The Republicans will do the rest themselves as they pander to their crazy base in their effort to pull them all out of woodwork (and the loony bins) and get them to the polls. When our side sees the spectacle, they'll be plenty motivated. Show some fight, pass out some goodies, and let's get it on.

It's not that secret Muslim President Obama, Devil-eyed Nancy Pelosi, "illegal aliens" or even left wing bloggers. No, serial liar right wing hero and media maven Andrew Breitbart has done us all a favor by identifying the most dangerous people in America, people he says are engaged in a war against their own country.

May I have the envelope please ...

"It's George Stephanopoulos. It's Diane Sawyer. It's Charlie Gibson, and, my God, it's Katie Couric," Breitbart said. "They are the problem." [...]

On Thursday, Breitbart criticized a wide range of national media outlets, including The New York Times and Politico.com, for glorifying the left while disparaging the right.

"They always change their goal posts for the other side," Breitbart said as attendees nodded.

Somewhere Chris Matthews is having a hissy fit for being left off the list.

But seriously, Politico glorifies liberals? Well, maybe when you view the world through a lens that says a Centrist President and a timid Democratic party in control of Congress and yet still unable to pass important legislation like the climate change bill or a large enough stimulus package amounts to the "greatest threat to our nation evah!"

More than one speaker described the United States as being at the verge of a make-or-break moment and urged attendees to support conservative candidates on the November ballot. "From the front lines, I'm telling you: We need your help. We are at risk of losing this country. We have 61 days," [Virginia Thomas, wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and a conservative activist] said.

Yes only sixty-one days left before we all get our heads chopped off!

I don't know if David Axelrod will see this, but maybe he will. He says the following:

"We'll continue to do everything we can, understanding that recovery will require persistent effort. There are no silver bullets," senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said in an interview Thursday. "At the same time, we have to make clear our ideas and theirs, and the fact that the Washington Republicans, having helped create this recession, have attempted to block our every effort to deal with it."

Here is my advice. Stop defending what you've done on the economy. Do not say that the stimulus was big enough. Do not say that no one realized how badly the economy had been damaged. Focus like a laser on the second part of your statement. The Republicans created this recession and they have obstructed every effort to fix it. That's your message. Stick to it.

And, what would help is having an actual fight on the Senate floor over a bill that would fix the economy. I know you're going to lose the fight and that a bunch of Democrats are going to side with the Republicans. Don't worry about that. Show people that you're fighting for their jobs and that the Republicans are not. If you want to change the dynamic, this is the only way to do it.

This is hardly news to me but at least it got reported by McClatchey, though I doubt our Cable TV infotainment networks will give a damn about it since it has nothing in it that your large multinational corporations would like you to know about (unlike say, how big the Beckoning really was):

WASHINGTON — An annual survey released Thursday finds that workers are paying, on average, about $482 more for job-based family health insurance this year as companies force employees to shoulder more of the burden of health care costs.

The premium hike, up 14 percent from last year, means that workers are paying nearly all of a $495 increase in the average cost of family coverage this year.

A FOURTEEN percent increase may not matter much if you already receive income in excess of $250,000, but if your income is around the median income of approximately $52,000 that $482 is a big expense, especially since I doubt you received a matching 14% raise in your pay. More than likely, if you still have a job your income level actually declined in either relative or real terms.

But hey, this is America. It could be worse. You could be unemployed. I'm sure that's what your boss would say if you complained about this rate hike.

By the way, have a wonderful Labor Day Weekend!

I just want to post some communist reeducational material for the benefit of Glenn Beck and Haley Barbour.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted on July 2nd. Here are the results of the election in November.

As Eugene Robinson noted on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight, there's a reason that black people all left the Republican Party after 1964.

I don't know why it is, but we get our asses kicked in August every single year. I'd have to check the data, but it seems like our polling ratings crater in August on a consistent basis. It happened to Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama during their presidential runs (I can't remember if it happened to Clinton or Gore). It happened in 2002 in the run-up to the vote on invading Iraq. It happened last year during the Tea Parties. And it happened last month. It seems like the Republicans actually prepare for the recess and the Democrats just go on vacation. Whatever it is, it's gotta stop.