Chris Hayes, Editor-at-Large of The Nation, hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday on MSNBC.
Previously, Hayes hosted the weekend program “Up w/ Chris Hayes,” which premiered in 2011. Prior to joining MSNBC as an anchor, Chris had previously served as a frequent substitute host for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.” Chris became a MSNBC contributor in 2010 and has been with The Nation since 2007.
He is a former Fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics. From 2008-2010, he was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. From 2005 to 2006, Chris was a Schumann Center Writing Fellow at In These Times.
Since 2002, Hayes has written on a wide variety of political and social issues, from union organizing and economic democracy, to the intersection of politics and technology. His essays, articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Time, The Nation, The American Prospect, The New Republic, The Washington Monthly, the Guardian, and The Chicago Reader.
He is the author of two books, A Colony in a Nation (W.W. Norton & Company, 2017) and Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy (Crown Publishing Group, 2012). Chris grew up in the Bronx, graduated from Brown University in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy.
The ACLU animates an amusing (and by amusing I mean eerily disquieting) vision of what a national ID database could mean, here.
Fortunately however, this month in the state-federal game of chicken over the REAL ID Act, the feds swerved first. While the bill required states to comply or file for an extension by this month, to date, at least six states have simply refused to adhere to the law--and when the deadline passed a week and a half ago, many didn't bother applying for extensions, either.
A chagrined DHS went ahead and issued them anyway. The new deadline is now 2010. By then, a new presidency and Congress will hopefully make the whole mangled plan--passed in 2005 as a rider on a defense bill--moot.
Here's the Times excellent Michael Cooper on McCain's reversal on federal intervention in the mortgage crisis:
Senator John McCain, who drew criticism last month after he warned against broad government intervention to solve the deepening mortgage crisis, pivoted Thursday and called for the federal government to aid some homeowners in danger of losing their homes, by helping them to refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages.
"Pivoted" is perfectly accurate, but I think there's another term that comes to mind.
Kevin Drum wonders: "Which is more important to the cause of free trade: (a) passage of the Colombian trade pact or (b) reining in the monstrosity that is U.S. farm policy?"
"The answer is (b) by several light years. So why do we hear so much about the dire consequences of failing to pass a piddling bilateral trade deal with a ruthless Latin American regime but almost nothing about the dire consequences of the hideous $300 billion distortion caused by the latest round of farm subsidies -- most of which goes to big agribusiness, not struggling family farms?"
Heartily seconded. To compound the inanity still further, food prices have catapulted by 40% since last year alone.
By now, everyone is familiar with Hannah Arendt's famous phrase "the banality of evil"
Like many I was disposed to view some of the most abhorrent abuses of the Bush administration as being a classic example of the type. But this new report from Jan Crawford Greenberg makes me think that maybe we're just dealing a bunch of sadistic maniacs.
Petraeus today on the Iraqi government:
Assisting the new Iraqi government is like teaching a young child how to ride a bicycle, Petraeus observed, noting the United States is "trying to support it as much as we can, while keeping as light a hand on the bicycle seat as possible.
Recalls an earlier era doesn't it?
Ryan Crocker this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the White House's intent for future U.S. security agreements with Iraq:
"It is our intention to negotiate as an executive agreement...we don't intend to negotiate any binding commitments that would require the Senate's advice and consent."
Well, you can't put it any more plainly than that. Meanwhile, The Guardian reports today that a leaked copy of the draft strategic framework agreement contains no limits on the number of US forces that will be maintained in Iraq, the weapons they're able to deploy, their legal status, their power over Iraqi citizens, or the length of time they'll remain.
My favorite snippet from McCain's speech today on Iraq:
Iraqi forces recently battled in Basra against radical Shi'a militias, supported by Iran...
Note the grammatical indeterminacy. Are the Iraqi forces "supported by Iran" or are the radical Shi'a militias the ones "supported by Iran"? Unclear, both in the text of the speech and in real life.