RELATED: Roland Martin’s CNN Suspension: Has GLAAD Become A Bullying Organization?

LGBT activist Wayne Besen from the organization Truth Wins Out thought CNN should go even farther and fire Martin.

“What he said gives license for people to harm LGBT people,” Besen opined. “Gay and Lesbian people are twice as likely than African-americans and Jews to be harmed in hate crimes. Four times more likely than Muslims and 14 times more likely than Latinos. There is a huge problem. We see it both with bullying in schools and also with hate crimes out on the streets. For someone to say because somebody looks different, because they don’t like the way the handbag they are wearing is, or a number of things, these tweets gave license, I think they allowed people to justify rationalize harming gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.”

O’Reilly defended Martin, saying that the CNN contributor’s tweets weren’t explicitly about gay people. “We have to be careful, I couldn’t care less about Roland Martin, I don’t follow him. I don’t care what he says. I think is he a moron, but point is — he is being persecuted for mocking a soccer player and soccer player fanatics, not gays.”

“We know what he meant,” Besen countered.

Watch the segment below via Fox News:

I don’t support the suspension, but I do see how the tweets could be taken out of context and seemingly support gay bashing. I have disagreed with Martin before, actually a few times. We have grown used to respectfully disagreeing with one another, and that’s something our society could use more of. Let me say this: there is no excuse for advocating violence against anyone, particularly homosexuals, at any time. And it’s not surprising that Martin’s irreverent sense of humor and off-the-cuff style of tweeting could be easily taken out of context. He frequently jokes about violence, but that’s far from advocating it. To wit, Roland’s Cookout Rules, which detail how cookouts are “conducted at his house”: “If your kid gets out of line, check ‘em before I do. My house, my rules. Ass whippings are bountiful if they start disrespecting adults.”

Martin wasn’t advocating violence to gays any more than he was to children. But a cursory look at a random tweet plucked out of a long conversation can easily be misconstrued. And while one may not find him funny (after all, he’s not a professional comedian), that doesn’t mean his brand of comedy is offensive, or, worse, worthy of character assassination. Martin has consistently and fervently spoken out against sexism, racism, homophobia, and trashy reality TV shows that reinforce negative and demeaning stereotypes.

It wasn’t until Martin offered a second (and some say more sincere) apology that GLAAD did what they should have done in the first place: offered to meet with him. Why rely solely on tweets to determine whether a man should lose his job without first hearing him out? There was no reason for that.

GLAAD Doesn’t Practice What it Preaches

Look, I get it. GLAAD is fully focused on helping to rid our society of the type of homophobic, violent, and misogynistic remarks that have contributed to an environment where gay teens are cajoled, bullied, and are “three times more likely to be depressed than their heterosexual counterparts.” We should all commend them for their diligence in such matters. No child should have to live in fear, and no parent should raise a child thinking it’s okay to instill such fear in someone else.

So it’s unfortunate that some of those same violent and misogynistic remarks that GLAAD fights valiantly to scrub from networks big and small are sometimes welcomed by GLAAD — depending on whom the remarks are directed toward and who is saying them.

In April a blog by the name of JoeMyGod won GLAAD Media’s ‘outstanding blog’ award. Run by Joe Jervis, the blog is well-known for comparing conservatives to Nazis and having misogynistic comments littered in its comments with no hint of a moderator. Commenters rarely one-up Jervis himself, the epitome of civility:

“One thing about the kapo bootlickers at GOProud, we alway$ know where their prioritie$ lie,” Jarvis wrote in regard to GOProud’s support of the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Daily Caller notes that “[d]uring World War II “Kapos” were concentration camp prisoners who worked inside the camps on behalf of the Nazis. Jarvis often tags articles about gay Conservatives with the word ‘kapo’….”

It’s unfortunate but understandable that GLAAD can’t rid these horrible words from our society. But the least they could do is choose to not honor someone who spouts them on a regular basis. That much I think they can accomplish.

H&M Wasn’t Courting Men

Never mind the fact that the David Beckham ad in question wasn’t directed toward men. Dream Hampton, a prolific journalist, noted that 83% of social media mentions regarding the ad were made by women. This wasn’t because men forgot to tweet that night. Research by a British retailer found something not too surprising: men traditionally buy their own underwear from age 19-23, from age 24 to 33 their underwear shopping decreases tremendously, and when they hit age 44 it’s nearly nonexistent. All this to say what an H&M marketing intern could tell you: H&M was going after female shoppers, plain and simple.

GLAAD is a Bully

Even Hollywood, typically very supportive of GLAAD, has begun to tire of their antics.

In October GLAAD began a “call to action” asking its members to petition Universal and director Ron Howard because at one point in the movie The Dilemma, Vince Vaughn’s character calls electric cars “gay.” Howard refused to pull the scene, responding: “I don’t strip my films of everything that I might personally find inappropriate. It is a slight moment in The Dilemma meant to demonstrate an aspect of our lead character’s personality, and we never expected it to represent our intentions or the point of view of the movie or those of us who made it.”

When Bruno, a satirical film about a flamboyant gay journalist, came out GLAAD’s senior director of media programs said, “Sacha Baron Cohen’s well-meaning attempt at satire is problematic in many places and outright offensive in others.” Meanwhile Elton John agreed to sing a part in the movie and Aaron Hicklin, editor of Out, a gay and lesbian lifestyle magazine, said of the film: “[it does] something hugely important, which is showing that people’s attitudes can turn on a dime when they realize you’re gay.”

See, GLAAD’s problem is that they have become a victim of their own success. Instead of focusing on how they can organically change minds and influence our culture to become more accepting of the LGBT community (a very worthy mission), they’re too busy overusing their influence to boycott, censor films, and have folks suspended and fired. What do these suspensions and firings accomplish? Who is benefited by such actions aside from GLAAD being able to claim another head on their Wall of Shame?

Just for the record, GLAAD, this rebuke isn’t based on your views; it’s based on your lack of principles.

RELATED: Breaking: Roland Martin Suspended By CNN For Offensive Super Bowl Tweets

The Twitter story, taking place on Super Bowl Sunday, has been recounted many times, but for the unacquainted: Martin tends to tweet teasing jokes about sports very often– whether it be his various sports feuds with Touré or his soccer jokes to Piers Morgan. Last Sunday, his tweets were inclined more toward the latter, and he made clear he objected to David Beckham, a soccer player, interrupting his Super Bowl with his underwear. Many, including GLAAD, took the tweets to be an attempt to incite violence against gay men who would find Beckham in his underwear an attractive image. Martin apologized and explained himself: he was actually mocking soccer fans during a football game, not homosexual males. The context of the tweet– one before it with the tag “#superbowl” about actually buying Beckham’s underwear line, and one after mocking Piers Morgan for liking soccer– seems to corroborate Martin’s point, debatable though it might be. After what it called “careful deliberation,” CNN announced today that they would be suspending Martin.

This sparked its own outraged response from many who remembered several offensive comments made by CNN contributors that resulted in no such punishment– most notably Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch, the former for, among other things, threatening to “pull a shotgun” on a census worker and the latter, among still other things, encouraging Marines to urinate on corpses, for America. Naturally, the fact that a comment using the word “ish” in a description of David Beckham appears to pale in comparison to them, resulting in many expressing confusion as to what CNN’s standards really are. Despite appearances, there is a method to the apparent madness of suspending Martin while letting other commentators, most notably the Tea Party wing of CNN (even if Erickson may dispute this) run amok.

This reaction was mostly on the left though; the right, rather than try to take down Martin’s colleagues, reacted with exasperation at the outrage towards Martin. Gay conservative group GOProud founder Christopher Barron defended Martin by noting that he, too, made fun of the same ad. Glenn Beck admitted his distaste for Martin’s comment in general while defending his right to make a joke. “Free Roland Martin!” writes the Daily Caller‘s Jim Treacher, imploring GLAAD to “relax” over Martin’s “stupid” tweets. Newsbusters’ Brent Bozell called the entire ordeal “hilarious” and found the tweets among Martin’s “least offensive.” John Nolte at Big Journalism makes clear that he disagrees ideologically with much of Martin’s opinions, but “the thought of trying to silence him is anathema to everything I believe in.”

RELATED: CNN’s Roland S. Martin Livetweets Dave Chappelle’s Strange Comedy Set

As a conservative, Nolte is right that silencing Martin for his tweets is anathema to conservative philosophy, though he argues this point on First Amendment grounds. But beyond the philosophical ideal of pure freedom of expression, the underlying double standard that regulates “elite” correspondents is a fabrication, in many ways, of what conservatives perceive as the “elite left.” The answer to why Martin is punished when Erickson is not is that they belong to two separate classes of pundits– “elite” and “non-elite.” Non-elites are not expected to speak or behave in any particular way. These are categories that conservative philosophy patently rejects, particularly post-neoconservative philosophy inspired by liberatarianism and Palinist populism in equal measure. Much of that rejection comes from a more hearty understanding of freedom of expression, but also from the perpetual feeling that they belong to a permanent second class of thinkers– thinkers that can get away with saying more outrageous comments at the expense of their reputations in the greater media.

This sort of mindset is a relic of the withering “Old Media” empire, and it is not new: the Dan Rathers of the world must have surely squirmed at the idea of Geraldo Rivera ever being taken seriously, the panic that must have swept Newsweek when some gift shop employee with an email list broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Even in the post-internet world, old media has done its best to maintain boundaries that no longer make sense. There are “journalists” and there are “bloggers;” “public intellectuals” and “muckrakers.”

And Martin is only the most recent in a string of apparent media “elites” punished for seeming human, while “non-elites” enjoy much more extensive freedoms. Slate columnist Dave Weigel left his perch at the Washington Post for privately employing the use of, among other epithets, the colorful Nixonian term “ratfucking.” Weigel belonged to a class of people not permitted to speak that way, and was nominally relocated to a class that could. The story is one of the few of its genre that ends well, with Weigel still the best of the hard-nosed reporters at the Washington Post Co. Martin’s story is still incomplete, but falls along similar lines, the difference being that he exposed his own silly language without the help of FishbowlDC.

RELATED: GLAAD Demands CNN Fire Roland Martin Over David Beckham Tweet

Conservatives are often quick to argue that the double-standard on what is acceptable in the public discourse is one of ideology. That Martin’s story so acutely defies that– particularly in light of the comments of some of his conservative colleagues– shows that many conservatives can see the game in action but have historically had a hard time identifying the players. In this sense, Martin has the wind at his back– and, perhaps with the support of the conservative media community, CNN may recant and keep a valued and original voice on the airwaves that may just come back with newly-acquired wisdom on where the true divides in media actually lie.

Martin, who spent Sunday evening live-Tweeting the game and several commercials, made a remark about an H&M commercial for David Beckham‘s line of men’s underwear. The ad, for those who missed it, features close-ups of the soccer player clad only in a pair of briefs.

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad,” Martin Tweeted, “smack the ish out of him!”

Martin insisted he was taking a jab at soccer fans, not the gay community. For your reference, here’s his original comment, including the Tweets that came directly before and after:

On Monday, Martin published a statement on the matter on his website:

Fam, let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday.

I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise.

It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it’s another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more.

At this time, the duration of Martin’s suspension is unknown.

Additional reporting by Alex Alvarez.

RELATED: GLAAD Demands CNN Fire Roland Martin Over David Beckham Tweet

Martin has since argued that his tweets were actually insulting soccer, a claim Beck mocked. However, Beck said he had no idea whether or not Martin was actually a homophobe. However, he seemed to be very sure in his feelings on the CNN contributor’s intelligence.

“GLAAD, you should have been on this bandwagon a long time ago. There is a myriad of reasons for getting him fired from CNN. He is an idiot. I have to stand with him, unfortunately, and say that you don’t fire people for what they say in their personal life or what they believe. You fire them because they’re idiots.”

It should be noted that this was clearly not an objective assessment from Beck. He explained that he used to work with Martin during his time at CNN and alleged that the man had told more lies about him over the years than he can count. Like his response to Anthony Weiner’s misfortunes, Beck was obviously enjoying his time watching someone he thought had slighted him get in trouble. At one point, he joked that, if there should be anyone out there being homophobic, it’s a good thing it’s someone in an ascot.

Watch the clip from GBTV below. At the end, Beck also joins Bill O’Reilly in defending Ellen DeGeneres from anti-gay protesters.

(h/t HuffPo)

On Thursday, in the wake of O’Brien going viral, the show returned to its normal state. Following a clip from Wednesday night’s Daily Show — which O’Brien celebrated being featured on without being made fun of — Martin made a point about Romney’s poor math in determining who constitutes the very poor.

“This whole 90, 95% middle class,” Martin said. “No. 15.3% of the country is in poverty. 22 grand for a family of four. Mitt might want to go check the math and understand the number of people out there who are having a difficult time.”

After making one more quick point, Martin stood up, reached over the table, said, “Great job, Soledad,” offered a high five, and announced, “Off to Tom Joyner!”

“Tell Tom I said hey,” O’Brien replied, turning to the rest of the panel. “Roland just gets up and leaves in the middle of our show. It’s all chaos here in the morning on Starting Point.”

UPDATE: Roland Martin tells Mediaite that he leaves at 7:15 every morning to do the Tom Joyner Morning Show.

Watch a clip of the show below, courtesy of CNN:

RELATED: CNN Confirms They Asked Mitt Romney’s Campaign To Pull Anti-Rick Perry Ad

O’Brien’s main problem seemed to be that so many debates have squeezed all of the substance out of the race, leaving only a handful of soundbyte moments to show for them. “At some point it feels like the conversation is all about these high drama moments and people can say what — it’s about managing the impact of the moment of the debate…”

“I think what the debates have shown us, we have gotten to see these candidates consistently and in different lights,” Martin said. “Think about it…if we didn’t have 19 debates, trust me, Rick Perry would still be in this race, still be high in the polls. It was all based on what was happening on paper. The debates have exposed people for what they are.”

Conservative CNN analyst Will Cain agreed. “The more sunlight you shine on this process, the better,” he said.

Soledad O’Brien has a point, but it applies to the broader political media, as well. Since the 2008 election, interest in political media has been at gold rush levels, and the need to feed that eternal (yet microscopic) news cycle has led to an emphasis on superficial drama over substance.

The tradeoff is that many more people are engaged in politics, particularly with these hella entertaining debates. That’s a fair trade, if you ask me, because there are still plenty of places for wonks to get a fix, and plenty of opportunities for a smart commentator to slip some nutrition into the media junk food diet.

I agree with Martin and Cain, the debates have provided a valuable public service to voters, acting as a crucible for Perry and Michele Bachmann, whose campaign demise can be traced to her HPV vaccine debate crazy talk. They have also proven problematic for sometime frontrunner Mitt Romney.

More than that, though, the proliferation of debates has served to ameliorate, to some degree, the influence of money on this race. The merits of voters’ judgments are debatable, but strong debate performances by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have helped them succeed far beyond what their respective war chests might indicate (especially Santorum).

Martin also made the point that the media types clucking at the quality of these debates bear much of the blame. “It’s on the people who are sponsoring these debates to ask the real questions,” he said. “You should have questions tonight about foreclosures. You should have questions tonight about real foreign policy. It’s on us. We can’t play the game and say it’s somebody else.”

Roland should be careful what he wishes for, though. If turning down the sizzle means turning off a significant portion of the debate audience, I’m not sure that’s a worthwhile trade. Getting people to turn off Dancing With The Stars and turn on a presidential debate is a win, in my book.

Here’s the clip, from CNN:

RELATED: Jimmy Carter Tells Piers Morgan That Gingrich Has ‘Subtlety Of Racism’

“Let me just say,” O’Brien noted, “that we have the most black people ever around the table for Starting Point in the history of Starting Point!” A true thing!

Getting back on topic, former Republican candidate Herman Cain said he was not amused by Carter’s comments. “I usually don’t get this intense: That is ridiculous. When they talk about coded words,” he said, “that’s talking about race. Take race out of it. It has nothing to do with it.”

Fellow panelist Roland Martin disagreed, pointing out that it was Gingrich who made race an issue by specifically mentioning the NAACP.

South Carolina’s Rep. Tim Scott and O’Brien then spoke over one another in voicing their disagreement over what, exactly, Gingrich had said. “I won’t talk over you because you’re a lovely woman,” said Scott.

“I know,” she replied. “It’s my show, though. I’ve got to get a point in occasionally.”

Watch the disagreement, via CNN:

RELATED: Mitt Romney Tells Today ‘I’m Not Predicting A Win’ In Iowa

As Erin Burnett tried to explain a pie chart showing the way voters had veered related to what they considered the most important issue, using her new Magic Wall move, “the flick.” The “flick” somehow did not get the pie chart onto the second screen as attempted until the third try, by which Burnett and Gloria Borger were cracking up.

Anderson Cooper seemed to sense that all was lost and asked, “have we all just given up?” to which Ali Velshi responded “it is evident from the social media screen that people are going to sleep.” For no apparent reason, this made Cooper explode in laughter. “Again with the social media screen? This is the third hit and I still don’t understand what the hell this thing shows!” Velshi then tried to explain– but not before telling Roland Martin to stop laughing. It didn’t really seem to stop him– or anyone else on the set– from laughing.

The delightful late-night segment via CNN below:

Bozell began the segment arguing that what was happening to Cain was kafkaesque, repeatedly asking King, “what’s the accusation?” He concluded that having the story in the news is “a lynching” and Cain “has been on trial for 36 hours.”

RELATED: Andy Levy Accuses Ann Coulter Of Playing The ‘Race Card’ In Tense Red Eye Clip

The note he concluded on offended Martin, who had previously brought up the topic on Twitter, tweeting a graphic reminder of what lynchings actually look like. Martin told host John King that CNN should show the photo for a comparison, and made that comparison himself in words: “when you saw black men hanging from trees, their bodies burned– that’s a lynching. A lynching is not when you have Herman Cain standing in front of the National Press Club singing ‘Amazing Grace.’” To Martin, the use of the word highlighted an attempt by conservatives to “shift the conversation away from Herman Cain and make it a race discussion– it’s not.” It was not a lynching, Martin concluded, but “big boy politics;” when one runs for president, one’s past becomes a factor.

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh To Touré: ‘For 23 Years I’ve Been Told I’m A Racist. I’m Not And You Are’

Bozell countered that “there is a special disdain that the left has for black conservatives” that is manifest in this story, and that he did not see a problem with the term lynching. “If it’s acceptable for Clarence Thomas, it’s acceptable for me.” The conversation got heated enough to turn into pure crosstalk until King stepped in, giving each their turn. While Bozell stuck to his point that black conservatives were “attacked much more harshly” than liberals, Martin insisted that “lynching” was an inappropriate term, and Bozell’s point didn’t really address that truth.

The segment via CNN below:

On his show tonight, Anderson Cooper focused on Perry’s economic bona fides; specifically, his record on job creation and balancing the state budget. Regarding the governor’s claim that Texas created more jobs than any other state, and that more than half the jobs created in the last year were from Texas, Cooper confirmed this was an accurate statement. However, he pointed that many of those jobs were minimum wage jobs, and that a portion of Texas’ labor force is most likely made up of illegal immigrants.

But it was Perry’s record on the 2009 federal stimulus that garnered the most attention from Cooper. The governor claimed that he was able to balance the budget without raising taxes or getting money from the state’s “rainy day fund,” but what Perry didn’t mention was that in lieu of the emergency fund, Texas accepted over $6 billion in federal stimulus money. Cooper pointed out that on the day Perry requested the federal stimulus money, he released a post on his website telling voters to oppose the recovery act.

When Cooper brought out the panel, conservative blogger Erick Erickson reluctantly agreed that Perry was “double-talking” on the stimulus, but was quick to point out that every single governor who opposed the stimulus ended up taking federal money anyway.

A lot of them did it because of pressure from their state legislature or, in some cases, I think Texas was one of them, Democratic delegations said, “We won’t give you money for education unless you take stimulus funding,” and Texas was affected by several of these things. But yeah, he’s going to have to explain that on the trail.

Roland Martin responded by saying that the Texas legislature is majority-Republican, so Perry would not be able to use the same excuse as other governors in explaining his decision to accept stimulus money.

Looking ahead to the governor’s assumed presidential run, Erickson predicted that Perry would draw more voters away from Romney than other candidates, while Roland Martin suggested the governor would be able to draw Tea Partiers from Michele Bachmann’s camp and social conservatives from Rick Santorum. Whatever the case may be, Perry will definitely prove to be a formidable opponents for many of the candidates, given that his presence has already overshadowed so many of them, before even announcing.

Watch the segment below, courtesy of CNN:

Martin smartly countered Sharpton suggesting “we believed [polls] when it was high,” yet Sharpton backed up his statement:

“What the media has tried to do is to have this black on black fight with the black community and President Obama. . . . Some black leaders who have held [Obama] to a higher standard than some of the white presidents including Bill Clinton they called black.”

Sharpton continued by arguing that Obama is being held to a standard that no other President before had to meet. Finally, when someone from the audience questioned when are the people of color going to form a party to counter the Tea Party, Sharpton proudly pointed to his response to Glenn Beck‘s Washington D.C. rally last summer and declared, “we have mobilized and pushed the Tea Party back.”

Watch the clip below from TV One:

(h/t The Blaze)

“Well, she has held public office. Kim Kardashian – I don’t know, has she ever held a job?” asked host Anderson Cooper.

“She held public office and she quit. She quit her job because she wanted to go out and become a celebrity!” Martin responded.

Watch the full video from CNN below:

The ascot situation became particularly prominent after Jon Stewart attempting to intake some news and information, was immensely distracted by Martin’s ascot. After trying to fight it for a time, even Stewart succumbed to the allure of the ascot. So what can we expect from this collection, other than finesse?:

“In an exclusive partnership, Roland Martin teams up with Verse 9 Neckwear to bring you this elite collection of ascots and ties.
Take your wardrobe to the next level and add a little Roland S. Martin swagger to your everyday life.
Bring the noise, bring the funk with the Roland S. Martin Collection by Verse 9. Order your neckwear, ascots and ties today.”

The page also allows you to upload pictures of yourself wearing said ascots, for those that like to flaunt what they’ve got.

Last time around, there was some controversy as to whether I supported or opposed the wondrous ascent of Roland Martin as CNN fashion icon. It should be clarified that not only is the fact that Martin carried through with his promise to create a signature line of ascots, but that ascots are even in popular use in the current century, is music to my ears. Not to mention that the cable news world in particular could afford to be splashed with some style. The world will be a better place when, for example, this little number is front and center on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

For those who missed it (and for old time’s sake), here’s the Daily Show clip that started it all:

[h/t Gawker]

Martin is a well-regarded voice of political analysis from a left-of-center point-of-view. So his support of Steele’s comments regarding President Obama position and priority in the Afghanistan War is somewhat surprising, particularly in that it also echoes the rhetoric of Ron Paul (shown earlier in the clip below.) When challenged by Daily Beast contributor John Avlon that some of the criticism of Steele is “partisan politics,” Martin doubled down on his explanation and defense of Steele, making clear that its not the RNC chairman that is the issue at hand, but the viability of the Afghanistan War:

“Suzanne, it’s not playing politics. The reality is here and we have to accept it…and that is this is a hugely unpopular war. When Michael Steele made the point, that who has won a land war in Afghanistan in the last 1,000 years, we have a difficult role there. You have everybody in Washington, D.C. trying to figure out what does victory look like? How can we somehow spin this whole deal? It is not going well. Therefore, where is the plan to give Americans confidence that we can actually win, whatever win is? Michael Steele’s problem here is frankly he was too honest about that aspect and Republicans, they don’t want the RNC chairman saying that but I think Democrats and Republicans have to own up to what are we doing in Afghanistan. Is it working? And if not then what do we do?

Avlon pushed back saying that it was too early to evaluate the troop build-up and renewed commitment to the Afghanistan War made by Obama, and that calling in to question the overall mission – at this stage – undermines “support for the President or support for our troops in the middle of an escalation when we are trying to win this thing and defeat the Taliban.” Nonetheless, it would appear that two potentially big stories looming for the next week center around the viability of US Troops deployed in Afghanistan and Michael Steele’s once and future role as RNC chairman.

Here is how the article begins, with all the gravitas of an eyewitness report from the frontlines in Afghanistan:

Roland Martin is talking revolution in this buttoned-down town.

“We’re going to do this one by one, person by person, block by block,” the talk show host and TV personality says.

Martin’s revolution has nothing to do with health care, bank bailouts or federal spending. It’s all about the lush puff of maroon silk underneath his chin.

An ascot …

Once the proud mark of an aristocrat, now an act of rebellion inside the Beltway.

Author Henry Jackson tries to inject some humor into the piece to prove he, too, finds the phenomenon hilarious– and maybe he does!– but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he actually did research “on the ground” in Washington, DC, searching for a guide to public opinion on Martin’s curious neckwear. He interviews DC professionals for a response to the ascot (the reaction is mixed) and even visited a proper neckwear shop to get an expert’s opinion.

Which brings us to an interesting crossroad in media– and specifically, internet– history: if the AP is aware of a meme, but treats it as a serious news story, has the meme jumped the shark? Is the AP capable of writing a story without inherently making it an important national issue? And what do we have to do, as responsible American citizens who love our country, to stop the growing tide of what was once an amusing cable news sideshow that has now become a monster all its own? Given that Martin has already hinted that he’s interested in going into the neckwear design business himself, this is probably just the beginning of what will inevitably be a entire segment’s worth of VH1′s I Love The 2010s.

[Photo courtesy of Roland Martin's Ascot Care Package To Jon Stewart On RolandSMartin.com]

Opening the segment with the Daily Show‘s ascot obsession segment, Sanchez, sporting an ascot clearly tied by a person who doesn’t tie them all to often, notified Martin of some potential dress code changes:

“I’ve had some conversations, I’m expecting that– I called larry king, sent emails to Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, and I had a conversation with Jon Klein, and I think we are real close to making this the official CNN anchor attire. How about that?”

There was an attempt to talk about the grave situation in the Gulf of Mexico thanks to the open oil well, but that didn’t last, and before long Martin was advising North Carolina governor Mark Sanford to “put a ring on” his Argentine mistress. Then, for some reason, Sanchez revealed what any necktie connoiseur was probably already suspecting, much to Martin’s horror: his “ascot” was more of a handkerchief than proper neckwear.

Video below:

Cooper welcomed a bipartisan panel featuring RedState.com editor Erick Erickson, CNN contributor Roland Martin (alas, sans ascot), and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin to discuss the birther movement and whether a long-form birth certificate really will satisfy their curiosity. In addressing Erickson, who, despite being anti-Obama, has denounced the birther movement, he admitted that, since his interview with birther army doctor Terrence Lakin, “I’ve received a lot of emails– uh, vitriolic emails– over the last couple of days from birthers who seem to kind of change the game mid-stride.” Erickson ends up agreeing with Martin and Toobin that “these people are masters of moving the goalpost” and that there is little chance that those claiming President Barack Obama is not a citizen will ever find definitive proof to dissuade them from that belief. Toobin put it a bit more crudely: “These people are bigots, they’re racists, they’re freaks, they’re lunatics– these are not rational people in American politics.”

Video below:

Besides the “Martin’s Greatest Ascots” compilation here, Martin tweeted in response to Stewart yesterday:

“True story: 2 weeks ago I was approached to launch my own line of ties and ascots in partnership w/an entrepreneur. Working out details now!… So the Jon Stewart parody is right on time! :-) Now y’all know I gotta get my entrepreneur groove on. Always have,…”

So there you have it. At some point in the foreseeable future, you too could be sporting the preferred neck fashions of 1920s British aristocrats and CNN contributors! We’ll have the latest developments on this breaking news story as they roll in.

It should be noted that yesterday morning, our own managing editor Colby Hall commented, after seeing the Daily Show clip, “wouldn’t it be great if Roland Martin was just trying to get publicity for his own line of ascots?” I’m running my lotto numbers by him from now on.

The ascots have actually been an object of discussion since last November, when Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser, co-hosts of ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption, took note of Martin’s look – then copied it themselves to amusing results, as the video at left shows. Martin was very much in on the act, even introducing “Ascot Day” himself – while wearing an ascot, of course – to start the program.

Indeed, to his credit, Martin gives as well as he gets on the ascot issue. Stewart’s initial sartorial salvo (shown in the video below) prompted a response from Martin that’s delivered with such purpose that it might be inspiring, if it weren’t so (intentionally) ridiculous. In addition to proudly calling America “The United States of Ascots,” and saying he wears them “because I want my America back,” Martin, who was going back and forth with Mary Matalin, even got in a dig at the fashion sense of Matalin’s husband, James Carville.

It was a thoroughly entertaining display, one Wilbon and Kornheiser might capitalize on by holding another Ascot Day – after all, they said the first time they tried it that they might do it again if ratings went through the roof. And though that statement was tongue in cheek, here’s a prime chance for the duo not just to bring the ascots back and add another touch of class to late-afternoon sports debate, but to remind Stewart that when it comes to capitalizing on Martin’s idiosyncratic choice of attire, they were there first.

This is probably one of the newsiest Daily Show segments in recent memory, if only because it’s also one of the newsiest news cycles in quite a while. Stewart manages to cover the Greek riots, the failed Times Square bombing, the Gulf oil spill, the Nashville floods, the short-lived 900-point Dow Jones crash, Florida Congress candidate Dan Fanelli‘s racial profiling ad, Roland Martin‘s ascot, and even some time left over to touch on the George Rekers “rentboy” scandal.

Video below:

The facts that surround the birther issue are rather stunning, starting with the law. Article 2, Section 1 of the United States constitution states that No person except a naturalized born citizen shall be eligible for the office of U.S. President. And despite claims made by the President and scads of respected elected officials and journalists, there still persists this notion that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims (only 58% of Americans believe that he was born in the U.S.)

Arizona’s House of Representatives just passed legislation this week that mandates that presidential candidates must producer a birth certificate to get on the state ballot. Cooper and Martin were joined by Jon Avlon, the author of Wingnuts, for what was a spirited and entertaining segment on the topic.

Martin has fallen in ill repute among tea partiers as of late for, well, believing the exact opposite of everything Tea Party movement stands for, but he is now compelled to take the protesters’ side in light of recent comments from many on the left that they are somehow dangerous, unconstitutional, or even seditious. “If anyone wants to oppose the Tea Party for spreading misinformation,” he advises, “do that. But to assert that it’s wrong to take part in civic engagement is utterly silly.”

He makes it clear several times, that he disagrees with them, but he takes offense on their behalf when the far left tries to label them dangerous for the country. “Don’t whine about someone else making noise,” he tells them. He also reminds them that the party in power before Barack Obama had to deal with its share of grassroots opposition, too, and this is where the MoveOn.org comparison comes in. He also compares the tea party groups to mid-oughts anti-war protesters:

“[The tea partiers] are a rowdy, loud and forceful bunch filled largely with Republicans who oppose the policies of the president. Nothing wrong with that. There were a bunch of rowdy, loud and forceful liberals and progressives taking to the streets to oppose the policies of President George W. Bush.”

Martin’s defense of the movement– while backhanded in its description of them as no different than protesters on the left in their size, volume, and general obnoxiousness– is a positive sign for the protesters. He even takes a minute to remind readers that not all tea partiers are as racist as people like Mark Williams (with whom Martin had a heated exchange several months ago) and Sonny Thomas. If an Obama supporter as staunch as Martin can come out and defend the Tea Party protesters, maybe polarization in this country isn’t so bad a problem after all, or at least is on the mend.

During the March weekend that health care passed there was lots of Tea Party protesters on Capitol Hill, and some ugly accusations of slurs thrown towards African-American members of Congress. Since then, there has been a rather intense debate whether or not the “n-word” had been used, as was alleged by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA).

Recently, Andrew Breitbart got into the act, and offered a donation of $100k to the United Negro College Fund to anyone who could prove with video that these allegations were not, in fact, baseless.

Martin suggested that, even if no proof was offered, that this was a pointless tact, since it only served to subtly reinforce the notion of racism within the Tea Party movement. Gergen countered that, accusations of racism are not to be dismissed so cavalierly – that Breitbart and other Tea Party leaders are smart to clear this up.

Part of the wonder – and challenge – of the Tea Party movement is that its been a fairly organic, if not, disorganized movement. Like any large group of individuals, its not fair to judge them by the actions of a few.

Have racist signs been held at Tea Party events? Yes they have (even by self-proclaimed leaders of the movement.) We’ll likely never know if someone shouted the n-word towards Lewis. But just because video does not exist of said allegation, does not mean that its without merit.

Video below (edited for time):

The racist in question is, unfortunately for conservatives, the head of the Springboro, Ohio Tea Party movement. His name is Sonny Thomas, and he would like all his Twitter followers to know that he is not comfortable with the amount of Latin Americans surrounding him lately. He tweeted: “Illegals everywhere today! So many sp— make me feel like a speck. Grrr. Where’s my gun?!”

Sanchez, who himself is Cuban-American, contacted Thomas for an explanation, and his attempt to get out of this tweet (since deleted from his account) was even more shocking that the tweet himself. He claimed that the tweet originated from his current music playlist, where the Bee Gees’ “Spicks and Specks” was on heavy rotation.

Sanchez handled the response perfectly, making some classic facial expressions of disgust at the man and shows genuine offense when he repeats, “he’s blaming this on the Bee Gees.” Watching Sanchez mature out of his cookie-cutter outrage or feigned dismay wonderful for viewers and even better, one imagines, for those who bet on him in CNN. is At the very least, it redeems him from the time he told a scientist to translate a meter measurement into “English.”

It’s also a reminder of when having a correspondent of the offended group can lead to a much more profound commentary on the given offense. Rachel Maddow‘s conversations with Lt. Dan Choi that revealed him to be gay and elevated him to be the most credible gay rights activist of his generation are a classic example, and, as previously mentioned, CNN’s African-American correspondents– most notably Roland Martin– demonstrated this perfectly during Bob McDonnell‘s regrettable Confederate History Month controversy. But rarely does the Latin American community get the similar satisfaction of seeing one of their own credibly destroy a racist argument against them.

Watch the clip below:

The entire conversation is a mismatch because Bowling refuses to acknowledge that slavery was actually at the heart of everything that was wrong with the Confederacy. In fact, he seems to prefer brushing aside that whole slavery thing entirely. Bob McDonnell‘s decision to declare April Confederate History Month, he argues, had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with honoring American patriots like his forefathers (and, we learn, Anderson Cooper‘s forefathers also). His argument hits a bit of a roadblock when Martin points out that those “patriots” are almost universally perceived outside of the South as traitors and “domestic terrorists.”

Watch the video below:

As Frances Martel wrote earlier about the celebration:

April is now officially Confederate History Month in the State of Virginia, as per a proclamation from the office of Governor Bob McDonnell. Understandably, many in the media are now up in arms over the glorification of slavery, racism, and treason, but it’s ok, McDonnell says the move has nothing to do with slavery– it’s only a tourist trap.

The month was chosen for a reason: it was the time during which Virginia first joined the Confederacy, and the weather is great for attending civil war reenactments! Plus, the declaration notes that Robert E. Lee called for unity after his army was crushed into submission, so that’s enough to call him a patriot, right?

Don Lemon started it off by quoting McDonnell’s comment on his website, and asked what it gained him politically. If there were ever a topic perfectly suited for the left-of-center Roland Martin, this is it. Lemon tried to bring it back to freedom of speech issues, but Martin interjected “Don. They were terrorists!” And that’s just the start.

Politico

The publication’s editor-in-chief told Journal-isms columnist Richard Prince that the camera shots didn’t reflect the diversity of Politico’s staff, especially when it came to the number of women who work at the organization. Harris, however, refused to discuss actual numbers with Prince, saying “our corporate policies don’t allow me to release numerical data.”

The Reliable Sources segment was designed to show Politico’s preparation for covering the vote over the health care bill.

CNN commentator Roland Martin tweeted his reaction to the segment while it was playing, saying “CNN showing an editorial meeting of Politico.com. NOT ONE MINORITY in the room. U wonder why coverage isn’t inclusive?” He followed up with another tweet, saying “I see one woman. But she didn’t say a word! Was she window dressing? Does Politico know how this looks? Pathetic!” He also posted the tweets on his Facebook page.

The Politico meeting caused controversy on the National Association of Black Journalists e-mail list, Prince reported, with many people furthering Martin’s assertion that the single woman was merely “window dressing.”

In an e-mail to Prince, Harris was especially frustrated with the assertion that the woman seen on the screen was “a token.” Harris wrote “I do wish to disabuse you of the idea that the editorial meeting featured ‘token representation of women.’ The women in that meeting included our managing editor for on-line (in charge of the web site), the deputy managing editor (in charge of running the print operation day to day) and one of our lead White House reporters.”

A review of Politico’s masthead does show a number of women in key editorial roles, including Danielle Jones who is managing editor for the online efforts. Other top women include one deputy managing editor, two assistant managing editors, the features editor, and the copy desk chief. The only minority manager in the newswroom is director of photography Michael Schwartz.

“We have racial diversity in most of the most important positions in our newsroom–on the White House team, on our photo team, on the copy and production desks, and on our congressional team,” Harris said in his email to Prince.