I'm heartened when I hear people supportive of social safety nets. I wonder if there are any economists/gov't officials/agencies with an idea of how many people since 2007: 1) Never qualified for UI benefits; and 2) Have exhausted all UI benefits?

I exhausted mine, now make about $100-150 per month in part time work. The Employment Dept. survey asks only if someone is "employed"- not how much one is employed. I earn so little that were I still receiving UI payments, the earnings would not cause a decrease in my benefit amount.

We haven't faced the fact in this country or gov't that the reduction in capacity made by business is here to stay until we create new businesses or large programs. We're just letting people drop off the economic lifeboat.

You,like an unthinking dummy,allowed comments concerning the Government(BUSH/CHENEY) establishment of HOME LAND SECURITY,the absolute unfounded war in IRAQ, and failed to challenge or correct the statements.

Prior to this, I considered you a somewhat reasonable anchor. Now i realize that you are brain dead!

Thanks for spending so much time on the National Defense Authorization Act. And for having Jeff Merkley and Chris Coons speak about it.

We need more of Errol Louis. Very enlightening comments about the meaning of the post office.

This show is helping to enlighten people, and I appreciate the energy and engagement that Chris offers. I feel in good stead. Most of the week we're surrounded by the unscrupulous, the unquestioning, the devious and dishonorable. I find so many cable shows revoltingly dreadful, chronically disappointing and way too focused day after day on the dismal queue of republican candidates who seek to end the safety net.

I like what Thomas Jefferson said:

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

Big fan of the show...it is already the most substantive and most perceptive on MSNBC...Congrats on the baby!

[only concern is that sometimes you, sometimes all, talk so quickly that not even a transplanted New Yorker like me can keep up...]

question on Congress - never could understand why they delay until 4th week in January to reconvene...its not like there are new members and committees need to be organized...

while it is true that almost all hearngs [and for that matter floor speeches] are scripted dog and pony shows, other than a huge 5 or 6 week vacation, what is the rationale for the delayed reconvening?

Thanks again.

It's great to see you talk about atheism, and new atheism in America. Shows like this should do it more.Those who practice no religion are the largest "minority" in this country, yet never seem to get the representation they deserve in politics and the media.

Hitchens death will surely hurt that. But it's great to see this show give voice to the debate.

The two women who espoused religious belief seem to lack understanding of Atheist thought. You can't say that because someone thinks something, it is a belief, which Ms. Slaughter stated. When does one accept that prayer actually does nothing and shouldn't this be pointed out? Ms Hunter thinks that someone making a cogent argument that religious belief is just magical think is actually proselytizing. She should look at the way religion is shoved down all our throats. You see sports figures praying before games and thanking god for a touch down. Religious groups demanding that prayer in schools (can't they pray on their own time?). Candidates for office must be religious to run. Chris mentioned a poll that show people choosing any religion over that of a non believer. There are more churches (tax exempt) than pizza restaurants. Well, there are many more of us than you think and we are sick of religious nonsense. Good for Hitchens, Dawkins and the other militants.

Dear Chris Hayes, I was so disappointed by your program today, Sunday Dec. 18 on the Iraq invasion and the destruction of that country. (1) Your program's premise that the reason for our invasion was democracy or about WMDs has been long debunked, as you should know, and was pure disinformation to justify that invasion; so much so that even France who was not a friend of Saddam Husssein warned the US against going there. Our response to this good ally was to boycott French products and to treat them as enemies. (2) On the other hand, plenty of evidence was available to show that the Neocons had for a long time been pushing for a war against Iraq, as their main concern was (and this is no secret) to defend Israel's interests at any cost, first of all by destroying its putative enemies. The Neocons think that to keep Israel safe it alone must have hegemony over the region; therefore their current push for a similar attack against Iran. The Neocons' only concern is Israel, not the USA or the cost of war or the lives of Americans. (3)You limited the casualty figures of the Iraq war to the official statistics which are meant to greatly minimize the number of Iraqi victims and the cost of that war for our economy. Not included in the American count are the great number of suicides of former Iraq GI's or those who are invalids or have post-traumatic syndrome, or the veterans who are now homeless and roaming the streets looking for jobs...As for the Iraqis, there was no mention of the number of victims of sectarian war that we unleashed on them, and the hundreds of thousands if not millions who were made homeless, internally displaced in their own homeland. Nor are we counting the millions (about four) of Iraqis who sought refuge outside Iraq in the neighboring countries but who have exhausted their resources, and some of whose women are now forced to sell their bodies in order to survive and support their families in exile...As for Ron Paul, he is right on the button when it comes to our Middle East policy, but both Democrats and Republicans are afraid to agree with him lest they upset their AIPAC controllers...I agree with your statement that you are no specialist in foreign policy; unfortunatley, neither are most of the panelists you had sitting around the table.

This moving sermon provokes critical thought regarding this moment of history of the masses rising in protest that the entire world is now experiencing, and ties it to a similar mass movement of centuries ago.

Magnifying the Lord by Rev. Leah Jacobs Schade on Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 11:29pm.

Sermon – The Rev. Leah Schade, United in Christ Lutheran Church, West Milton, PA

Advent 4 – "Magnifying the Lord"

Luke 1:26-38; 46-55

This is a magnifying glass. What does a magnifying glass do? It makes small things look bigger.

How interesting that Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord." This means that she is making a small thing look bigger. The Greek word is megalunei – to enlarge something, to make or declare something great.

What an appropriate song for her to sing. Think of the tiny embryo growing within her womb, the embryo that is promised to be the very Son of God. She is, quite literally, helping to enlarge the Lord by carrying that child inside of her, taking care of her body to make sure the fetus is healthy, preparing her life to receive her newborn child and help him grow into the man God has called him to be.

I used to love to play with magnifying lenses as a child, because it gave me a new perspective on the world, helped me to see the details of things that I couldn't normally see.

What is Mary helping us to see about God, about this child that grows inside of her? What new perspective can she give us? What details can she help us see?

Well, her song, which we read as our Psalm today and which we will sing as our hymn, has one overarching theme – with God, the small ones become large, and the large are cut down to size. It's about surprising reversals.

Think about Mary's situation for a moment. Here she is – an unwed teenage mother. She should have been scared out of her wits. By rights her fiance' Joseph could have called for her to be stoned to death because it would appear that she cheated on him and conceived a child out of wedlock. And yet these are not the words of a scared young woman. These are bold words, confident words, declaring herself blessed by God, protected by God.

And think about the cultural context in which these words are spoken. Women back then, as they are in many countries today, were to be silent, demure, accepting of whatever abuse is committed against them, and to do whatever they're told. For Mary to speak these words would have been considered offensive, prideful, and completely inappropriate for her age and her gender. How dare she claim to be blessed by God when all signs point to the contrary?

Even more than that, think about the political situation of her time. She is an Israelite living under the occupation of a foreign power, the Roman Empire. Her people's lives are dictated by the big business of Rome – its government, its military, its system of sacrifice and domination. Yet here she is saying that the proud are going to scattered, the powerful are going to be brought down from their thrones, the rich are going to be sent away empty. And to complete the reversal, the lowly will be lifted up, the weak will be made strong, and the hungry ones will be filled. Do you realize what's going on here? These are words of protest. This song of Mary is a song of revolution. Mary is putting the powers and principalities on notice that the end of their reign is near and the coming of God's reign is . . . within her, within own body.

As we look through the magnifying glass of Mary's song, this is the detail that we see. Something new is being born from within her. New courage to confront oppression, to claim her own power as a beloved daughter of God, to have agency in her own life, to have a say in how she is to be treated, to speak truth to power, boldly proclaiming that the system of domination that is trying to control her life really has no power over her. Because she has faith in the God of her ancestors, the God of Abraham and Moses, the God who brought her people out of slavery and, later, out of exile. This same God is going to come through for her and her people again. The presence of God growing within her is going to change her, and the whole world around her.

So how is the Spirit of God growing inside of you? How is your soul magnifying the Lord? What is being born within you that is changing you, and has the potential to change the world around you?

Have you seen the cover of Time Magazine this week? The Person of the Year is: The Protester – from the Arab Spring to Athens, from Occupy Wall Street to Moscow. Editor Rick Stengel writes: "History often emerges only in retrospect. Events become significant only when looked back on." He goes on to describe how the protests began in small ways among the poor and lowly and hungry, and have gone on to topple the powerful, scatter the rich and proud, and bring down entire governments. Sounds a little bit like Mary's song, doesn't it?

He continues: "Everywhere, it seems, people said they'd had enough. They dissented; they demanded; they did not despair, even when the answers came back in a cloud of tear gas or a hail of bullets." Or, in the case of Mary's son, when the answer came back in the lashes of a whip, and a crown of thorns, and crucifixion on a cross.

"They literally embodied the idea that individual action can bring collective, colossal change."

So I ask you again, how is the Spirit of God growing inside of you? How is your soul magnifying the Lord? What is being born within you that is changing you, and has the potential to change the world around you?

Someone looking in at our little church from the outside might say, oh, these are just simple country folk. They're not about revolution. They're not about protest. In fact, the tendency would be to think that about this whole region of the upper Susquehanna valley. These are quiet, ignorant people who will take whatever abuse is committed against them, do whatever they're told. We can do whatever we want to them, and they'll just take it.

But I have to tell you that I witnessed something quite the opposite this past week. As many of you know, I attended a public hearing at the Susquehanna River Basin Commission this past week to read and present a letter signed by over 40 clergy and faith leaders from 7 different religions and 6 denominations within Christianity to protest the approval of 26 hydraulic fracturing projects along our precious, endangered river. At this meeting I listened to the impassioned pleas of over 50 different individuals from all walks of life begging the commission not to allow these projects that will poison our water, pollute our land and air, kill our livestock, and cause cancer in our children. Grandmothers, twenty-year-olds, lawyers, psychologists, mothers, scientists, and yes, clergy all spoke to express the will of the people that our water, land, air, and public health be protected. And the commission voted to approve the projects anyway. Some of you may have seen on the news the cries of protests that erupted.

The people were angry, furious that they had been sold out to the powers that try to control the money and politics of our society.

But I can tell you – this is not the end. Something is growing here in the Susquehanna Valley. Did you know there is an Occupy Lewisburg movement? People are connecting in ways they never have before. I don’t know exactly where all this is going, but I can tell you it is growing.

Our souls are magnifying the Lord. We are creating a new perspective, we are helping people to see new details about God’s reign among us that were not visible before. All of us – the citizens of the Susquehanna Valley – all of you, here in this church – we are magnifying the Lord.

A reversal is happening. Because the Lord empowers those who struggle against the powers that seek to dominate and demand sacrifice. The Lord protects the ones who appear to be weak. The Susquehanna Valley and most of Pennsylvania is like the people of Israel, overtaken by corporate powers that seek only their own financial gain, no matter what the cost to the people they are oppressing. But they are forgetting that Mary’s song is our song. When we sing this hymn in a minute, Mary will be singing through us, putting the powers and principalities on notice that the end of their reign is near and the coming of God’s reign is . . . within us, within our own bodies.

As we look through the magnifying glass of Mary’s song, this is the detail that we see. Something new is being born from within us. New courage to confront oppression, to claim our power as a beloved sons and daughters of God, to have agency in our own lives and communities, to have a say in how our river, and our land, and our plants and animals are to be treated, to speak truth to power, boldly proclaiming that the system of domination that is trying to control our lives really has no power over us. Because we have faith in the God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham and Moses, the God who brought Jesus out of the grave on Easter morning. This same God is going to come through for us and our community again. The presence of God growing within us is going to change us, and the whole world around us.

So how is the Spirit of God growing inside of you? How is your soul magnifying the Lord? What is being born within you that is changing you, and has the potential to change the world? Amen.

On Sunday:

I was disappointed that your discussion of the end of the Iraq war cut short a deeper acknowledgment of the Iraq we leave behind. The hundred thousand plus deaths and the extent of "democracy" under Al Maliki are important, yes, but there's more. What's happening on the ground in Iraq now? What are the people of Iraq actually experiencing in their day-to-day lives? What's the country going to do about the 2 million Iraqis displaced from their homes, or the violence targeting unmarried women, or the utter lack of safety and security and basic services in many parts of the country? What about the education system for the next generation of Iraqi young people? You missed an opportunity. Check out Brian Lehrer's Monday morning show - he took it on.

I'm glad to see two issues discussed here that are often ignored by, for lack of a better term, "The Media." Firstly, the Ron Paul phenomenon. Glad it was touched upon.

Secondly, atheism. Unfortunately, I take umbrage at some of the points displayed. As a person who was raised in the religious tradition of Presbyterianism and subsequently educated by fundamentalists (I was shown every anti-evolution video in existence during my "Science" classes) and then Jesuits, I have the life-experience and first-hand knowledge to know of which I speak. I came to my strongly held atheist beliefs through a long process of allowing the ocean containing all my other thoughts gradually to wear down the rigid levees behind which my religious beliefs were barricaded. It was helped in no small amount by the like of Christopher Hitchens, as well as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and, most of all, Douglas Adams. This is the context out of which comes my paradigm.

First point: The first thing you, Mr. Hayes, spoke of the other Chris H. and the New Atheists in general was that they was a "militant atheist." Forgive me as I scoff. Christopher, nor anyone prominent in the current atheist movement, has ever proposed violence, or even matching costumes. There's not a "definition" of militant I could find in a perfunctory google search that meets any action taken.

The term "militant atheism" was seemingly invented by believers fearful of a direct conversation. Why do I contend this? Because, just taking the United States as an example, 90% of our population believe in God. according to Gallup. That means most of our soldiers are believers. Most of our military brass are believers. Most of our congresspeople are believers. All our presidents are or claim to be believers. That means every single war, military, or police action ever committed by this country was done by believers. The militant believer is, statistically, a norm. It is thus a curious case of psychological projection to purport that it's the wee group of folks, defined only by the rejection a poorly supported philosophical claim who are militant.

Second: the notion of respect. Having grown up in the circumstances I described, I find myself socially and conversationally marginalized to even bring up the fact that I'm an atheist. People seem to see my mere holding of such an idea to be an attack on their own fundamental view of life, the universe, and everything. We have reached a cultural point that deity belief is so entrenched that simply questioning the possible veracity of such a thing is considered disrespectful. I'll also point out that Christians (the religious group most popular in this country and most encountered by me, personally) rarely are concerned with treating Thor, Jupiter, or Baal with respect. Is there proof somewhere that Yahweh is real, but those aren't?

Finally: "evangelical atheism." Ideas are spread by language; ergo, all spoken, written, or implied communications are evangelical in the broadest sense of the word. In the not-broadest sense of the word, "evangelical" is specifically dealing with the Gospels and thus is inapplicable to atheism. Now, "evangelical atheism": as a person who lived in the narrow spectrum of religiosity, I understand how difficult it can be to grok a non-theistic worldview. However, having emerged from that point of view, I see a culture who takes theism as normality and lack of belief as potentially dangerous deviation. I see the in city of Lincoln, NE, (where I lived for 6 years) with a population of 258,379 people, 227 Christian churches and fewer than 5 dedicated secular humanist meeting places. I see a world where if it came to war, the believers would overwhelm the non-believers immediately. And yet, we are begrudged even the simple liberty of stating our opinion.

I have a wealth of more arguments to make, but I think that gets most of my points across. Further reading can be found in the books of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Adams, and the inimitable Christopher Hitchens.

PJ Crowley said on Sunday that both the Iraqi people and Americans are better with Sadam Hussien dead - I think that needs discussion, mostly because I don't buy it.

As for the Iraqi's, that really needs to be qualified. There is still secterian violence perpetrated and supported by the goverment, women are under constant attack, their education infrastucture is destroyed (used to be pretty good), their electrical have hours long black outs of energy that is expected, over 100,000 people are dead and their families don't have them, and Iran and China are their new BFF.

As for America - huh? What does he base that on? Over 4,000 people dead? That's a tangible loss, but if you consider the itangibles - we were emotionally manipulated into the war and emotionally manipulated through much of the war. This manipulation has caused huge rifts in communities across the nation. We have a demonstrable national hate for a large number of our citizens (Muslims) and fear them as 'other'. We have a national dialogue where large factions of our citizens believe that TORTURE is acceptable and desirable. Not only did we, as America, appoint ourselves cop, judge and jury with regards to the war, but we did the same with Sadam and very few people batted an eye when we executed him based on our (the enemy) indictment of him rather than letting the international courts deal with it objectively. We have a massive new war-contractor industrial complex where career professional are leaving public service to be mercanaries for hire. Cops in our cities are armed like little private armies because in our induced emotional fervor, we forgot to look at what was going on locally.

I could go on, but you get the point.

The comments didn't make sense to me and if you think that's reasonable, I wish that you would clarify the statement.

Yikes! I forgot to mention why all of that makes us worse off in my mind. It will take us a very long time to undo the damage that was done. On a neighbor to neighbor level, on an ethical level, and on a governmental level. Not only will it take a long time to recover, but it may take just as long for the damage to percolate to our public discourse.

One great thing about your show that I noticed recently: it does not include the standard MSNBC "teaser" segment in the middle of the commercial break. I really despise those mini-segments to be honest, and your show does not have them! It is refreshing to know that when the commercial break ends, the conversation really does continue.

The word "cliche" comes from the French, meaning to make a printing plate to reproduce many copies of the same material.

When I heard it said that "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein" I had an almost visceral reaction, this seemingly automatic response, as if the Bush League and Cheney successfully hypnotized the masses, as if George Orwell predicted all of this.

As if it allows the war to leave a pleasing fragrance????

That, my friends, is a distraction from the truth and consequences of the war--the hideous loss of life. Permanent injuries, paralysis. Post traumatic stress issues, inability to assimilate back to normal life.

I also advise you google Falujia, Irag, that ghastly invasion. White phosporous... such a sad story of war.

Bush's War: The injuries and death to Amercan troops, the impact of their families, and the atrocity of so many distraught widows, widowers, and orphans left in the country of Iraq.

These are the undisguised and unmistakable facts.

And now behold the effect of this illegal and immoral war on the treasure of the US, and how it allows the republicans to feel privileged to shave off the safety net, and scare seniors and the young about social security and medicare, and we now watch our last hope--the democrats-- to start to agree with it all.

I'm going to stay away from the contentious back and forth above of religious vs. non-religious other than to say that I agree with deathbysloth in that the use of "militant atheism" is a wholly inaccurate description and dbs does a good job of explaining this.

Apparently going along with that notion on the show was admitted atheist, John McWhorter. His admonishment that these atheist authors are indignant (along with some of the other comments by the panel) ignores the fact that for centuries it's been perfectly okay for religious authors and speakers to speak in a much worse manner about non-religious people - openly condemning non-believers as evil and to an eternity of suffering.

I find the new atheists to be quite restrained in comparison to much of what is said on the other side of that argument. What makes religion so free of scrutiny? Isn't it hypocritical to assign "militant" and "indignant" to only one side simply because it is the non-religious side?

And then there is Karen Hunter who wants to know "why [atheists] are making this an issue?" Someone on the panel, perhaps her, stated they feel "put upon." Ms. Hunter feels non-believers should shut up?

Well, right after watching Sunday's show I took a two-mile walk and here's what I experienced in that brief time. I passed two churches with crosses looming into the sky and signs and other symbols espousing their religious beliefs. I passed a public elementary school with a large banner on the fence that promotes "Act:10 Bible Club on Thursdays" to the students. I passed by a large (lit at night) Christmas mural on a neighbors fence that proclaims "God the Almighty" and shows the baby Jesus. I passed by a nativity scene in a yard, as well as numerous overtly Christian symbols for Christmas in many yards.

I'm not complaining about any of these, but bring it up to point out that there are numerous instances within a day - Christmas or not - where a person is literally bombarded with the religious and Christian message. There are entire shows and channels on TV devoted to the religious and Christian message. There are a great many more books written about and for the religious and Christian message than there are about atheism. The so-called new atheists numbers and output, though growing, pale in comparison to the huge volume of those things Christian.

So to to feel put upon or to feel compelled to tell an atheist to shut up or stop making it an issue, well, I feel that is supremely hypocritical and ignorant. No, I am not saying you are ignorant for what you believe, but simply for ignoring the whole picture. I then take offense at the attitude that people of non-belief - who never do so with "militant" and violent activity - that they should not speak their mind about their own views.

In this context I don't believe there is truly much for a religious person to complain about - other than they don't like someone who disagrees with them that isn't afraid to talk about it. God (or no God) knows that non-believers earn more than their share of damnation from believers quite overtly in day-to-day life.

I won't complain about your gargantuan barrage of religious symbols, words, and media, and in return I would hope that you would put the atheist words and message and people into context with the realities of our country. That's all I ask.

"What makes religion so free of scrutiny?"

No one says that religion should be free of criticism.

"Isn't it hypocritical to assign "militant" and "indignant" to only one side....."

Yes, it would be if no one ever referred to some Christians or Muslims as militant. But they do and so it isn't hypocritical to also use the term for extremist atheists also. Both religious and non-religious advocates who use an aggressive and strident tone are seen as "militant".

"I'm not complaining about any of these"

Well, yeah, you kinda were. Individuals have a right to religious expression. Including forming Bible study groups in public schools after hours. In a free society you do not have the right to restrict the religious expression of those you don't like. No one is saying you shouldn't be able to speak your mind. What they object to is people being a dick about it. Critics like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris could not rise to that level of respectful discourse.

See Phil Plait's talk: "Don't Be a Dick"

TheOnCommingStorm, I sincerely believe you missed the entire point of my commentary and you're twisting my words around. I never alluded whatsoever to restricting anyone's expression, religious or otherwise.

You must put what I say into context with the actual segment from the show and not into just the same old, tired believers vs. non-believers argument. There was a simple point which is pretty much summarized in my final two paragraphs;

I believe that that there is no room for complaint about more and higher volumes of atheistic expression while the volume is always on pretty loud in our environment with a high level of religiousness. That is not at all a complaint about said religiousness, but a statement about the factual comparison of it's pervasiveness as compared to atheism.

So what if a few people speak out. Get over it. Just as I do with some of the more active critics of non-believers. I'll add that I have never used the term "militant" in reference to any religious person or diatribe that was anti-atheism, nor has anyone I know.

I also know that not all religious people act or think the same as those people who are so easily offended and criticize atheists or accuse Dawkins or Dennett of being "militant." My brother is the lead pastor at a large church and does a lot of good for others and I love him for who and what he is. He has tolerance, compassion and a humble attitude toward any line of thought, including other's non-belief.

As you sit here and argue/debate with others above, TOCS, I fear that, just as Karen Hunter does in the show by being harshly critical herself and wishing atheists would stop expressing their views - be aware that you might get caught on the slippery slope of becoming what you rail against. Don't be a dick, indeed.

Here it is Wednesday the 21st and still no clips from the Sunday show? Incompetence, holiday laziness, understaffed?