Patterico's Pontifications

10/21/2010

Open Thread: Juan Williams

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 11:01 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing]

Okay, here’s your open thread to argue all over the place about Juan Williams and his firing from NPR.  Go to it.

Let me kick this off with a quote from IMAO: “Wish we could do something, but it’s kind of an impotent threat for conservatives to say they’ll boycott NPR.”

Update: Weasel Zippers has an internal memo on the matter.  Discuss!

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

184 Comments

  1. Fox news has two slots, 3-4 7-8, that the same Shepard Smith hosts. Why not be really fair and balanced, and give Williams the 3-4 slot. Fox could really stick it up NPR’s ass, plus raise their ratings for this slot.PS Maybe they could give Trace Gallagher the 7-8 slot and raise the ratings there as well.

    Comment by Charles Curran (1fdb1f) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:10 am

  2. “it’s kind of an impotent threat for conservatives to say they’ll boycott NPR.”

    Exactly. The only time I hear NPR is when I’m in a taxi and the driver is trying to learn English.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:10 am

  3. What did he get fired for? Being on the “porch” as one of his NPR hosts said to him?

    Will PF put up like 18 threads on how Liberals are purging their party of “moderates?”

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:11 am

  4. Assuming things all go according to plan, can we finally get a GOP majority finally to defund NPR.

    When the far left kooks started Air America in 2004 to make sure there were liberal voices on radio, I was like “what, these nuts don’t get NPR where they live?”

    Time to pull lick NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting off the public teat. Public funding is only a relatively low percentage as it is (@ 16% per Wikipedia) so maybe they can go earn their budgets in the market. George Soros, convincted felon and international currency manipulator can cover that without breaking a sweat.

    As for Juan Williams, I hope Fox hires him full time – much as I disagree with him, his opinions are worth hearing.

    Comment by Soylent Green (c5c03a) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:12 am

  5. I don’t always agree with Juan Williams, but I like the man and I think he has integrity. I think it is just outrageous that NPR would fire the man for speaking his mind.

    Comment by Terrye (7379d2) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:13 am

  6. Torque, he was fired for noting people should resist their fear of Muslims, in traditional garb, when boarding an airplane. He acknowledged feeling some fear, and then gave a PC solution to it.

    Of course we really know what’s going on. Juan is a successful Fox News contributor, and Fox News is the only major TV source of news that isn’t shilling for democrats. NPR, being the most bent democrat shill in the country, doesn’t like Fox News.

    It really is as simple as that. Far from tolerating a conservative view on their own programing, they can’t even tolerate a liberal who is impure enough to be on a balanced network.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:14 am

  7. Just remember, when people claim NPR doesn’t get most of its money from governments, they are wrong.

    It sells its programing, which are usually paid for by state entities like public radio and state universities. It’s laundered pork.

    You don’t see conservative radio sucking wealth from taxpayers.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:16 am

  8. “1.Fox news has two slots, 3-4 7-8, that the same Shepard Smith hosts. Why not be really fair and balanced, and give Williams the 3-4 slot.”

    Good call. Juan is no loonier than Shep and would broaden Fox’s reach. Can’t say I’d catch it though, Cavuto and Baier is all I crave.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:17 am

  9. The irony and hypocrisy of it all is too much.

    JW is on the decent end of the Liberal Spectrum but it looks like he was purged for his lack of purity.

    Attention all Liberals on Fox … watch out for your day jobs!

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:21 am

  10. omg,…whenever I get on a plane…..

    http://www.theawl.com/2010/10/that-guy-npr-fired-should-totally-go-back-to-france

    Comment by dudeabides (4af6f8) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:25 am

  11. I just watched Andrew Klavan’s: The Extremists are Coming!
    (H/T- Instapundit)

    I’m going to call my physician now, and have him put me in a medically-induced coma, so that my brain will have a chance to re-boot.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:28 am

  12. Mark “How To Speak Teabag” Fiore: Remember his ‘toon on NPR’s website a year or so ago?

    Oh, NPR put out a little tsk-tsk when challenged about it, but … it still runs the toon. Mark Fiore wasn’t fired.

    Could it be because Fiore is … WHITE?

    Racists.

    Comment by Mitch (890cbf) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:35 am

  13. Actually, Juan should have been fired not for saying Muzlims on planes make him nervous but for his poor analysis of the situation.

    No decent terrorist is boarding a plan head-to-toe in muzlim garb. He will be in disguise as a Westerner to disarm his ‘oppresors.”

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:39 am

  14. White Liberals fired a black, latino Liberal.

    I can see room for lots of tension.

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:40 am

  15. So Juan Williams was fired for having thoughts and feelings? What’s wrong with that picture?

    Comment by Sara (Pal2Pal) (4d3f49) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:44 am

  16. Interesting that this is NPR’s fund raising week. Like the NYT, the NPR is a rigid progressive outlet catering to people who LIKE this sort of action. Now they have gotten tons of publicity.

    Their ombudsman often speaks about ‘the values of public radio’. Give me a break. They are demogogues shilling for people to elect democrats. They should be seen as the political advocacy group they really are. They should pay taxes the same way their conservative counterparts do (alone that’s a huge federal subsidy).

    They do have sponsors, but their sponsor page has gone down the memory hole and isn’t cached. Starbucks and Wal Mart are major ones, but the taxpayer is the major sponsor, via local stations, tax breaks, and direct funding.

    As always, when our tax dollars fund something, trickery is used to hide it, such as the member station dues (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports (funds a large majority of the expenses for) a huge number of stations, and these stations pay NPR.

    I think the solution is simple. We’re out of money anyway. Terminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (created by Congress). This is wasteful in an age where any dope can put their podcast online. We do not need to elevate pals of democrat politicians with tax dollars. If they can’t compete with Rush, who cares?

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:46 am

  17. Look for the Kos kids to equate this with Helen Thomas and the Joos in 5, 4, 3, 2, . . .

    Comment by Icy Texan (b49138) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:46 am

  18. I’ll cheer Funemployment when Judy Woodruff gets her walking papers.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:48 am

  19. Hey, who let the mask slip?

    “We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week.”

    I bet.

    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:50 am

  20. Dustin: maybe it depends on what you listen to on NPR, but my experience isn’t that they’re a bunch of demagogues shilling for Democrats.

    But then again, what i listen to is usually:

    * morning edition – which is rarely explicitly political but tends to suggest a left-leaning social environment

    * forum – local talk/call-in show led by a guy who is center-left on the san francisco scale but seems to take serously the responsibility to listen to all sides when he does politics (he also does arts and science shows)

    * fresh air – clearly center-left politically (but would be considered center-right on the san francisco scale), but mostly interested in entertainment and only sometimes political subjects

    * marketplace – economics and business news (generally accepting of keynesianism, but pro-market – kind of along clinton/rubin/summers lines … which is, again, center-left, and not really left-wing).

    now, when i turn on pacifica radio, i hear real left wing stuff (the system is just a means for keeping people down, the corporations/police/whomever are out to get us, etc).

    but my experience with NPR is that they are on the left side of centrist, rather than being truly leftist.

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:54 am

  21. Let’s see, Juan has layed down his whole life with insane, dumb leftists and liberals and now finds himself waking up with insane leftist and liberal fleas.

    What a wake up call for him to be on the recieving end, something he never expected-that’s only for conservative! Juan, did you really think they were anything but what they are? You can’t have reached the age you are without knowing damn well what you threw your lot in with.

    Count down to Juan being smeared and called an “Uncle Tom” by the party of tolerance in 5…4…3..

    Comment by Cosmic payback (6a46d9) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:55 am

  22. So Juan Williams was fired for having thoughts and feelings?

    I think it was more of the way he expressed them, and where. His employer seemed to think that it ran counter to the ethics code — a code which Williams presumably agreed to when he was contracted by NPR.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:58 am

  23. How much federal money goes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting into NPR? Between 15 and 20 times the amount of money NPR claims they get from the federal government. The CPB sends $65 million to radio stations, and those stations are where NPR gets 42% of its revenue. Another $30 million or so goes direct to NPR.

    That’s a hell of a lot of money.

    Why do we have a Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2010, when discourse is cheap and unfettered by NPR censors on the internet? We’re out of money as a country and need to make a lot of cuts. CPB needs to be eliminated totally. Much of their programming would go online, anyway.

    Juan only slightly deviated from ‘public radio values’ for daring to express a legitimate view. I don’t want my country paying $420,000,000 a year, billions each decade, for such an Unamerican thing as the CPB.

    I’m sure some heads will explode at how insensitive it is to deny this material. The same heads never ask for Rush to be subsidized. They don’t ask for an Ayn Rand show.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:05 pm

  24. Dustin: maybe it depends on what you listen to on NPR, but my experience isn’t that they’re a bunch of demagogues shilling for Democrats.

    I suspect he doesn’t listen to it much.

    aphrael’s summary of NPR is pretty accurate in my view. I think the kinds of stories that NPR focuses on tend to be (for lack of a better word) center-left, but not overtly so. The big difference is that you get less left/right punditry and more left/right analysis — and if you don’t know the difference, then you don’t listen to NPR.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:07 pm

  25. I think it was more of the way he expressed them

    What does that even mean?

    You say he could have expressed them without violating the ethics code, fascist?

    How? How does Juan express this idea without violating the ethics code?

    You said it wasn’t the idea, but how he expressed it, so let’s see you back that up.

    Still amused that you think it’s a conflict of interest for someone to appear on both NPR and Fox News, as though people have some obligation not to speak honestly.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:08 pm

  26. De fund NPR Feb 2011- cut them off and let them choke in the marketplace like Air America.

    And NPR was right when they saw the TEA Party as a mortal threat… we are. Congress will be hounded relentlessly until we’re no longer paying for this little Psy-Op ministry

    Comment by Reaganite Republican (c90bca) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:10 pm

  27. Cosmic payback, representatives of the left have already been calling Williams an Uncle Tom. It was a year ago that Warren Ballentine told Williams, “You can go back to the porch”.

    Comment by Icy Texan (b49138) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:10 pm

  28. Aphrael, one example of NPR blatantly shilling for democrats.

    You’re right, they don’t always do so this blatantly. But indeed, they are partisan.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:10 pm

  29. It was a year ago that Warren Ballentine told Williams, “You can go back to the porch”.

    … but that was A-OK!

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:13 pm

  30. Dustin: I suspect, again, that it varies from show to show and reporter to reporter.

    That said, I have no particular objection to ending federal funding; I think NPR would do just fine without (albeit, it would have to run more commercials than it already does).

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:13 pm

  31. “…but my experience with NPR is that they are on the left side of centrist, rather than being truly leftist.”
    Comment by aphrael — 10/21/2010 @ 11:54 am

    If one is standing on the 15-yd line, that is the center of your world; so, someone on the 10 would be to-the-left (so-to-speak), but someone on the 20 would be to-the-right, regardless of the fact that you’re all three standing to the “left” of the actual mid-point (the 50!).

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:14 pm

  32. It was a year ago that Warren Ballentine told Williams, “You can go back to the porch”.

    Good grief. Juan’s real sin is recognizing the legitimacy of conservative POVs enough to respond to them (almost always disagreeing with them).

    That’s what NPR is frothing about. Such a little thing as respect is verboten. It’s not hard to play ‘who would be a nazi’ in this case.

    It’s time to terminate the $420,000,000 a year Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Anything less means more fascism through another taxdollar laundering scheme. Remember, the people moved to defund NPR many years ago… at the end of the day, they got MORE tax dollars than ever before.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:18 pm

  33. I think NPR would do just fine without (albeit, it would have to run more commercials than it already does).

    Comment by aphrael

    No doubt.

    I don’t mind the NYT or Newsweek or Kos refusing to hire someone who dared to speak honestly on Fox News. That’s their freedom of association. I just don’t want to pay for it.

    I wouldn’t want you to have to pay for Sean Hannity, either.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:20 pm

  34. AD – correct. I think you are standing on the 75, so someone standing on the 45 looks like they’re really far to the left to you. :)

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:21 pm

  35. You say he could have expressed them without violating the ethics code, fascist?

    How? How does Juan express this idea without violating the ethics code?

    You have to understand a little about journalistic standards, and the fact that NPR has one kind of standard, and Fox News (or more accurately, Bill O’Reilly) has a different one.

    Williams has himself acknowledged that the journalistic standards are different, and he even admitted to crossing the line once before because of some comments he made on Fox:

    But then he reviewed the tape and realized that “the tone and tenor of my comments may have spurred a strong reaction to what I considered to be pure political analysis of the First Lady’s use of her White House pulpit,” said Williams via email. “I regret that in the fast-paced, argumentative format my tone and tenor seems to have led people to see me as attacking instead of explaining my informed point of view.”

    This is just the same type of thing. Williams simply wasn’t able to straddle those two standards.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:25 pm

  36. Kmart’s asshattery continues apace.

    What did he say that was against said “code of ethics”?

    Comment by JD (35df65) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:25 pm

  37. Kman, answer my question.

    You said it was OK for Juan to express this thought, but he should have done so differently. I think you’re just blathering again.

    Prove me wrong.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:26 pm

  38. Oh good Allah. Give me a effing break.

    Comment by JD (35df65) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:28 pm

  39. Reading the reactions to Williams’ firing on both left-wing and right-wing blogs, I was reminded of the old maxim that the Right is looking for converts and the Left is looking for heretics.

    I was also reminded of Charles Krauthammer’s observation that “To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

    Comment by Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:30 pm

  40. You know, this is wrong even without the ‘tax dollar’ point.

    I want people to have the freedom to be wrong, but it’s still wrong.

    Had Fox fired Juan for something like this, I’d feel the same way.

    There is a level of bigotry that warrants termination, of course. This isn’t even close. A serious, frank discussion of dealing with race will include this kind of earnest point. Many classes, programs, and groups have these talks, and Juan’s frank description of the issue is a completely acceptable element.

    I realize Kman was sloppy enough earlier to admit this is about the ‘conflict of interest’ of any NPR folks showing up on Fox News. This is some kind of crazy intolerance of Fox News rather than anything Juan said.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:37 pm

  41. Mike: except that an increasing number of liberals think conservatives are stupid. :)

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:42 pm

  42. On NPR, Williams was expected to provide well-thought out commentary, based on his reporting, about today’s politics. On Fox, the pace is faster, and spontaneity and expressing strong opinions are valued.

    There was a conflict of interest — at least in the eyes of NPR — when Williams appeared on Fox and engaged in the Fox kind of journalism. Not that there’s anything inherently bad about Fox’s style of journalism, but it did detract from his ability to be viewed as an impartial NPR analyst.

    Dustin suggests:

    I realize Kman was sloppy enough earlier to admit this is about the ‘conflict of interest’ of any NPR folks showing up on Fox News. This is some kind of crazy intolerance of Fox News rather than anything Juan said.

    Well, yes. I think that’s quite true in many ways. Call it journalistic snobbery on the part of NPR — I certainly won’t disagree with you there.

    But it’s NPR’s brand, and NPR’s business model — trying to be a source of journalism (and fine arts, etc), that is “above the fray”. And Williams knew that.

    I just don’t see anything wrong with NPR trying to protect its brand, and I can’t see why any capitalist would object.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:47 pm

  43. @ #34…I have never claimed to be “MOR” – some have said that I was declined for membership in the Michigan Militia for being not liberal enough – that’s what I get for standing outside the End-Zone.

    But, back to NPR…
    Here’s a neat little factoid thanks to a link on Roger Simon’s take on this:
    the local NPR/CPB outlet here in L.A. is KCET (radio and TV), and the compensation of the President is $426K, and EVP gets $251K. It seems the head of NPR gets something like $1.3M!
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/09/29/survey-npr-ceo-made-1-3-million-bucks-year

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:48 pm

  44. Mike: except that an increasing number of liberals think conservatives are stupid.

    I think an increasing number of liberals think that an increasing number of conservatives are stupid, but there’s a reason for that.

    Goldwater, Thatcher, Reagan…. where are their heirs? Palin?!? Huckabee?!?

    That plus (for some reason) we’re re-opening the debate on evolution, etc.

    I recognize that many, if not most, conservatives don’t fit fall into the evolution-denying, Palin-is-a-genius category, but there certainly seem to be more of them than even ten years ago.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:56 pm

  45. re-opening the debate on evolution

    Science does this everyday as they continually investigate “the origins of the species” in trying to determine where we came from, and how.
    It is not, as is popular to say in the media, settled science;
    Because, we do not know the complete extant of our existence, and nothing is settled (or, as Lawrence said “Nothing is written!”); nor, does it appear, that it ever can be since the boundaries of the Universe seem to be beyond our reach, and perhaps, understanding.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:04 pm

  46. Assuming things all go according to plan, can we finally get a GOP majority finally to defund NPR.

    Good luck – when they finally installed a head of PBS that had a right of center POV, their employee’s heads exploded. Ken Tomlinson couldn’t even get noted lefty hack/LBJ Hatchet Man/homophobe/gay outer Bill Moyers off the air.

    There was a conflict of interest — at least in the eyes of NPR — when Williams appeared on Fox and engaged in the Fox kind of journalism.

    I’m going to ask the other commenters here to please refrain in the future from responding to this incessant jackass. Once deprived of oxygen, it will slowly die for lack of attention.

    Comment by Dmac (84da91) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:06 pm

  47. So. What is the difference between a Muslim terrorist half an hour before he commits an act of terror and a Muslim who would never think of committing an act of terror?
    Could you tell them apart?
    Of course not.
    The question is whether a non-trivial proportion of the group in quesion acts badly. If so, you are right to be nervous seeing one of the group.
    Second question is whether the number of Muslims committing acts of terror counts as non-trivial.

    Comment by Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:07 pm

  48. Moyers good. Williams bad. Kmart is a lying fool.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:09 pm

  49. I’m going to ask the other commenters here to please refrain

    I’ll do my best, but I usually have a hard time not feeding these bridge dwellers.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:11 pm

  50. #43 Wow, seems like pretty pathetic compensation compared to other CEO salaries that have been in the news the last couple of years. The President of NPR must work for some sort of publicly funded organization…….

    Knee jerk PC carries its own penalties. If NPR was getting lots of irate phone calls and panicked and fired the guy then they have lost and it will show up in their fund drive (less money). If Mr. Williams was a drag on the organization and he gave them a lame excuse to fire him then they have won and it may show up in their fund drive (more money as opposed to same amount of money).

    Comment by EdWood (c2268a) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:12 pm

  51. John Fund column head at WSJ-Online:

    National Pusillanimous Radio

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:13 pm

  52. The memo from NPR is hysterical.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:13 pm

  53. Ed Wood, while your reasoning is sound, this goes completely against ‘public radio principles’ that NPR purports to believe in.

    Firing someone because his views (or willingness to show up on FNC) is unacceptable to financial supporters (democrats in government and democrat donors) is the opposite of what NPR is pretending to be all about.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:16 pm

  54. They believe in diversity of skin color, not diversity of thought.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:18 pm

  55. Are there any NPR (National People’s Radio) “reporters” that appear regularly on MSNBC or other so called mainstream news outlets? (I can’t think of any).If so, are they held to the same standards that Williams supposedly was?

    Comment by BT (74cbec) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:19 pm

  56. JD

    the irony is that in the cases allowing for affirmative action for diversity purposes, it is allowed as a means to achieving diversity of thought.

    I long thought a great way to attack racial diversity programs is to point out that they don’t care about ideological diversity.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:20 pm

  57. Are there any NPR (National People’s Radio) “reporters” that appear regularly on MSNBC or other so called mainstream news outlets? (I can’t think of any).If so, are they held to the same standards that Williams supposedly was?

    Not to my knowledge, but NPR’s Mara Liasson often appears on Fox and, like with Williams, that’s been a subject of controversy at NPR for a couple of years.

    So far, she’s kept her head down and not stirred up controversy by anything she has said over at Fox.

    But I think you raise a good point.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:26 pm

  58. I love the diversity that I see (well, if I watched) at MSNBC (sarc).
    There’s more diversity on Bret Baier’s show, both racially and intellectually (plus he’s got info-Babes that run the gamut) than on entire networks.
    Boy, that FoxNews, it’s just corrupting America.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:26 pm

  59. Mara can preach liberalism all she wants, and is never questioned. Stray from the leftist plantation, and they fire Williams. They would never object to what she preaches, because she is singing from the same hymn book.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:44 pm

  60. Goldwater, Thatcher, Reagan…. where are their heirs?

    Yes, where can we find a match for these heroes who were praised so highly and so vocally by the Left when they were in office?

    Do you remember how the Left sang hosannas of praise when Ronald Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” How they congratulated him for pointing out that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was, indeed, an “evil empire”?

    Do you remember how the Left thundered its approval when Barry Goldwater proclaimed, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” Because of course the Left is totally committed to both liberty and justice, right?

    Do you remember how the talking heads on the Left all nodded as one in approval when Margatet Thatcher noted, “There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.” How the recognized the truth of her statement that “To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.”

    You don’t? Neither do I.

    Comment by Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:47 pm

  61. Now those are Inconvenient Truths!

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:49 pm

  62. The person that wrote that thinks Barcky is smart.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:51 pm

  63. The person that wrote that woeful lament about conservative thinkers likely thinks Barcky is smart, and has supported his failed policies up and down the line.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 1:53 pm

  64. The Los Angeles Times reported that Fox News has signed Williams to a new, three-year, $2 million contract. He will have an expanded role on the network and will write a column for FoxNews.com.

    Comment by Tom (d886c2) — 10/21/2010 @ 2:04 pm

  65. Crying all the way to the bank.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 2:08 pm

  66. If the LA Times reported that, it is prolly a 4 year contract for $3million.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 2:12 pm

  67. From a FoxNews item…
    “FOX News has re-signed Juan Williams to an expanded role with the network in a multi-year deal, Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive officer of FOX News, announced Thursday after National Public Radio fired Williams for his comments on the O’Reilly Factor Monday night, when he said it makes him nervous to fly on airplanes with devout Muslims…”

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 2:19 pm

  68. So just what is the story of George Soros directly paying 100 journalists a total of $1.8 million to work at NPR exploring “Enterprise Journalism”? I am certain they will have no agenda. Anyway that averages out at 18k for each flack.

    Comment by Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 10/21/2010 @ 4:32 pm

  69. Vivian Schiller confirms today that the problem wasn’t just Juan Williams expressing an opinion, it was the content of the opinion:

    “Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist,” the network’s CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.”

    Heckuva job Viv!

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/21/2010 @ 4:42 pm

  70. I’m sure Vivian is earning every bit of the bloated salary PBS is paying her.
    BTW Vivian, are you getting more than your predecessor, Paula Kerger, who was paid $534,500 in 2008?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 4:47 pm

  71. Would it bother anyone if I celebrated Ms Schiller getting the worst form of painful cancer?

    You can only be so arrogant and flip and well paid and wrong …. without inviting horrible things on yourself.

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/21/2010 @ 4:51 pm

  72. I was never a fan of Juan Williams as our politics were not in the same ballpark, but I hope he writes a column about NPR’s firing him. And NPR should be defunded. I have thought that for many years, even before this kerfuffle. It’s kind of like union dues from conservatives going to the Dim candidate whether they like it or not.

    Comment by PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:05 pm

  73. OT Oust Grijalva!

    Comment by PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:06 pm

  74. It bothers me, Torquemada.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:14 pm

  75. The LA Times reports Fox News offered Williams a $2 million contract over 3 years. Maybe NPR did him a favor.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:18 pm

  76. DRJ, see JD @ 66. Word.

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:21 pm

  77. The psychiatry thing is not “a bug, but a feature”
    http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/21/juan-williams-firer-a-soviet-f

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:25 pm

  78. The Corner compiled Nina Totenburg’s comments which apparently met the NPR standards as she is still employed by them:

    On Jesse Helms: “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

    On Sam Alito: “I think that’s right. You know, they picked a woman, probably a nice woman, a woman you might hire if you were in a corporation but who had no constitutional law experience whatsoever and did things in successive weeks that each time made her look less and less qualified. And then, of course when she gets dinged, then we go back, as Ruth Marcus said, to some white guy.”

    On the Bush administration: “People in administrations make short-term decisions, and I think the one to sort of go on the offensive publicly against Fox was not too bright. Now, the Bush White House did that, it just cut people dead, it froze them out, you know it froze whole institutions out, didn’t talk about it. It was much more like the Mob. When you talk about it, you diminish your influence.”

    On the Tea Parties: “Well, you know, I don’t know whether this really has any legs are not. You have to remember that at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it. It was a good stunt. Whether the stunt really is more than a stunt remains to be seen. Obviously there are people who don’t like paying taxes, among them, probably some people at this table and certainly a certain individual whom I share a bed with doesn’t like paying taxes at all.”

    On the Bush tax cuts: “Well, there are some relatively minor tax cuts and fixes in the first part of the week and then came the big benefit for investors in capital gains and all of that. Now, you know, I would benefit from that. Probably everybody here would benefit from that, but I just think it’s immoral to do that, not to mention fiscally irresponsible, when you’re cutting people who have nothing — from children off of Medicaid and mothers who depend on childcare losing the childcare and can’t work. And then what do they do? Go back on welfare? I mean, it is, it’s, I just think it’s immoral.”

    If only he had expressed fear over those wacky Tea Partiers getting on the plane with him, all would be well.

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:27 pm

  79. “What did he get fired for? Being on the “porch” as one of his NPR hosts said to him?”

    It appears as if it was violating his employer’s policies.

    Comment by imdw (043f60) — 10/21/2010 @ 6:28 pm

  80. Let’s compare NPR’s treatment of Williams and Gwen Ifill:

    1. NPR claims Juan Williams was previously moved from a staff correspondent to analyst because he “took clear-cut positions about public policy on television and in newspaper opinion pieces.” Williams’ NPR contract has now been terminated after he said he was “worried” and “nervous” to see Muslim garb on an airplane, even though he also said it was important not to let our fears lead to bigotry. NPR deemed his statements unacceptable even for an analyst, while Williams says he was fired for telling the truth.

    2. On the other hand, Gwen Ifill is classified as an NPR senior correspondent but it didn’t bother NPR when she claimed there had been a “failure of news organizations, mostly newspapers, to support and promote people of color.” Isn’t that a clear-cut position about bigotry, race and ethnicity, something NPR claims was the basis for Williams’ termination?

    Either NPR has a different standard for statements about Muslims or its decision can only be described as rank hypocrisy, e.g., it is more likely to see problems when NPR reporters appear on conservative programs or espouse conservative views. I suspect it’s the latter since NPR’s own website includes a report that “Williams’ presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.”

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/21/2010 @ 7:00 pm

  81. I am sure that Ifill and Totenberg will be disciplined for their partisan viewpoints.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/21/2010 @ 7:02 pm

  82. JD,

    Most ironically, Totenberg is their legal correspondent.

    Whether Ifill or Totenberg, the double-standard of hypocrisy is stunning. And not even the quiet hushed soothing tones of NPR can mask the vicious vulgar heart of the organization.

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/21/2010 @ 7:18 pm

  83. re: #20

    Haven’t listened to Marketplace in a while, aphrael. Do they still say “the dollar and other foreign currencies?”

    That always summed up their viewpoint to me.

    Comment by Peter B (56be4b) — 10/21/2010 @ 7:26 pm

  84. This is just another example of making sure the left keeps the folk on the plantation or, the reservation, as the case may be.

    NPR hides a charade of objectivity allowing themselves to promote the cause of the poor and subjugated.

    There is nothing wrong with that, because people are poor and subjugated.

    However, their good intentions mask an inherent judgment that only governmental power can raise the disenfranchised to the level of the status of the the purveyors of right and wrong.

    I personally believe that the individual is responsible for his or her actions and society is the best outcome for judgment. Government certainly has a role, but how you act and react within a free society is the ultimate arbitrator.

    Comment by Ag80 (743fd1) — 10/21/2010 @ 7:26 pm

  85. Could it possibly be that Obama’s theory of people tending to behave irrationally when they’re scared and worried might explain the decision of NPR to sack Juan Williams?

    Comment by ColonelHainku (1bc82e) — 10/21/2010 @ 7:26 pm

  86. #74, It is bothersome isn’t it. Can’t say I feel bad about it either. I guess I am flawed. But thankfully, what I may think and feel are not illegal nor do they really create said problems.

    But yes, I wish some people ill. I think when you are such filth, you deserve it. When you actively go about hurting others for sheer frivolity ….

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/21/2010 @ 7:36 pm

  87. I’ve thought that Juan Williams has been able to see some objective common sense in spite of liberal roots, but he has continued to think that libs, including the one, do what they do out of genuine concern and intellectual integrity, but they just see things differently. It is an unfortunate event to be fired, but maybe this will help him rid himself of those mistaken opinions, and he’ll realize how little it has to do with intellectual integrity or “fairness”.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/21/2010 @ 8:00 pm

  88. This is just going to take on several life forms as the days go by:

    NPR’s decision to fire news analyst Juan Williams for remarks he made about Muslims on airliners was not only roundly criticized by conservatives Thursday, but also was viewed with alarm by some Muslim American activists and scholars.

    “The greater American public remains unsure about Islam and very often hostile about Islam,” said Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University.

    Ahmed said he was disappointed by Williams’ comments. But he added that NPR’s abrupt firing “does not bring the temperature down against Muslims…. Now the debate is, are we being oversensitive to Muslims?

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/21/2010 @ 8:46 pm

  89. Torquemada,

    I certainly understand the impulse to respond to ill will in kind but it doesn’t do any good, does it? It not only allows the wrongdoer to claim victim status, but it mires us in wasted and possibly self-destructive thoughts.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/21/2010 @ 8:55 pm

  90. Don’t most of you, deep down, have to admit that this NPR story, and the fallout, and the followup, and then the rest of the story where Juan gets a new contract deal, sort of made your day? :)

    Comment by elissa (d7465e) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:13 pm

  91. If Frank Rizzo said: A conservative is a liberal who got mugged the night before.

    Does this constitute Juan Williams’ mugging?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:18 pm

  92. Comment by elissa — 10/21/2010 @ 9:13 pm

    As I said earlier, he’s crying all the way to the bank.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:19 pm

  93. Bob Beckel said he agreed with what Williams said tonight in an appearance on Hannity, that Muslims on airplanes scare him and that he knows a lot of liberals share that view. He also thought what NPR did to Williams was shameful and Beckel said he would not be contributing to NPR this year because of it.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:35 pm

  94. Wow, Bob Beckel has more integrity than a lot of righties and lefties on TV.

    Surprising, but good for him.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:39 pm

  95. Over/under on when the NPR lady gets sacked herself (or resigns to spend more time with her family?)

    Comment by elissa (d7465e) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:41 pm

  96. I don’t know, elissa, she was pretty defiant and didn’t seem terribly upset (at least in the video clip I saw on Fox)…

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:46 pm

  97. Added bonus contribution to the good day, again thanks to Juan–we didn’t have to see Obama give his lame car in the ditch schtick on the teevee news (or any campaign rally coverage of The One at all, for that matter.)

    Comment by elissa (d7465e) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:46 pm

  98. ________________________________

    1. NPR claims Juan Williams was previously moved from a staff correspondent to analyst because he “took clear-cut positions about public policy on television and in newspaper opinion pieces.”

    How much you wanna bet that if Williams had said something along the lines of “whenever I see gatherings of Tea Party activists, I think of Klanners getting ready for a lynching,” that NPR wouldn’t have fired him? Hell, how much you wanna bet they’d instead have given him both a big hug and a promotion?

    Williams’ comment is sort of a more justified or even more understandable variation of what Jesse Jackson mentioned several years ago. That’s when Jackson said that whenever he was walking down a sidewalk and noticed a nearby male pedestrian, he’d suddenly become relieved when the guy turned out to be white instead of black.

    I say that Williams’ observation, by contrast, was more on-target because he was referring not to the genetic aspects of a person but to that person’s garb. In this case, the “I’m doctrinaire and proud of it!” style of a stereotypical Muslim—presumably a male or female with head gear, if not a full-blown burka.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:05 pm

  99. elissa – Obama chiming in saying Juan Williams was stupid or something would have been an extra special treat.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:14 pm

  100. Also, the people picking on Juan might be racists! We should prolly check with JD about that, though.

    Comment by elissa (d7465e) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:22 pm

  101. JD would denounce you for even thinking such possibly racist thoughts.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:26 pm

  102. elissa – Prolly a bunch of hilljack cousin humping Jesuslander swine as well.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:34 pm

  103. It’s ON!!! Howard Kurtz–”A blunder of enormous proportions…”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-21/nprs-juan-williams-disaster/

    Comment by elissa (d7465e) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:55 pm

  104. Juan may have just had a flashback to this film……..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ixWF1ZVsQ4&NR=1

    Comment by dudeabides (92beba) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:09 pm

  105. DRJ #79

    The difference between the two examples in your comment is that example #1 was an individual making a perjorative statement against another group of people (ie. THOSE people make me nervous), and the second example was Ifill criticizing an institution (“the media”). The first is bigotry and the second is social criticism (justified or not). I don’t see any hypocrisy there if NPR is all about being PC (right or wrong) and having no tolerance of bigotry and at the same time supporting one of the goals of journalism which is to criticize (right or wrong) social institutions.
    The last paragraph in your comment really makes me suspect that this whole thing was personal and they were looking for an excuse to fire him.

    Comment by EdWood (38b402) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:10 pm

  106. So did anyone here object to CNN’s unjust firing of Octavia Nasr?

    Comment by AJB (d64738) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:45 am

  107. AJB woke up and decided he would start his day by proving he has the brain power of a compost heap. Followed by a LOOK BUNNIES attempt at distraction.

    Comment by JD (ae2c41) — 10/22/2010 @ 5:49 am

  108. While we all get on a plane and do what Juan does, the reality is that the 9/11 team did NOT wear anything to identify themselves as Arabs. They wore J.C. Penny clothes.

    Comment by Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:11 am

  109. Williams had a history of sexually harrassing women. At least seven women went on the record to say that Williams had made inappropriate comments to them at the Washington Post.

    He is more appropriate to Fox News that just gave him a raise. He’ll be more comfortable as the token black at the white Muslim hating black fear stoking tittie porn network.

    Comment by W (9df40f) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:22 am

  110. #89, Oh, I hear you but it is the way I feel. Not going outside today and spewing on anyone …. but still how I feel.

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:37 am

  111. Didn’t Nasr say “YES” to violence?

    I thought JW’s comments were just the opposite. He seemed mortified over what he”felt” about our Muzlims Peace Lubbers.

    Comment by Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:39 am

  112. W – Given that NPR mentioned nothing about sexual harassment, thank you for bring this relevant information to our attention.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:41 am

  113. _______________________________________

    He is more appropriate to Fox News

    You’re correct! Since Juan Williams is in the mold of Bill Clinton — a beloved figure to so many on the left — it does make sense for Fox to deviously use him as their token liberal and a perfect metaphor for where liberalism has ended up in the 21st century. The irony is, as they say, delicious—-and I’m not even factoring in the symbolism of liberal Williams running head on into the PC-nuttiness and phoniness of liberal NPR.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:54 am

  114. Daley – “w” is little midget racist hilljack Professor of Plagiarism William Yelverton.

    Comment by JD (b49131) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:55 am

  115. AJB – CNN’s firing of biased employee Octavia Nasr for expressing her admiration for that Hamas big wig, sort of expressing admiration for Hitler because he liked dogs, was slightly different. Not surprising you fail to see the distinction.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:00 am

  116. That’s the line being carried forth at TPM, yes it’s exactly the same, also Helen Thomas’s modest
    suggestion about Jews, wth is wrong with these people

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:07 am

  117. By sheer coincidence, the verbal sexual harassment charges against Williams at the Washington Post surfaced at the same time he was defending Clarence Thomas against the allegations made by Anita Hill. Williams publicly apologized for his behavior to his colleagues at the Post. Has anybody seen any rumors of repeat behavior since or are the swamp dwellers at Kos and DU just lasered in on 20 year old information?

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:16 am

  118. Well the Post, is floating someone we’ve never heard of before, (I know you’re shocked too)

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:22 am

  119. Daleyrocks – the lying plagiarizing yelverton is being a good footsoldier in disseminating their smears.

    Comment by JD (b49131) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:23 am

  120. Then again, I doubt what Williams said on Fox would even rank in the top 10 of the most revolting bigotted fear mongering hateful satatements of that day on the Fair and Balanced network. The lies, bullshit and fear mongering has become a cottage industry for documenters of such BS.

    Comment by W (9df40f) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:53 am

  121. Bob Edwards, former host of Morning Edition 1979-2004 was forced out of that job; not in a classy way, NPR-not strong on “PR”. I’m still getting over that ungracious act….loathe Steve Inskeep.

    Comment by dudeabides (7b2c6d) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:46 am

  122. In response to Huckabee’s call to boycott, I just doubled my membership pledge to my two local NPR stations…

    Comment by J Vaughn (8c56dd) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:57 am

  123. NPR may need it, J Vaughn. Jim DeMint has announced that he will introduce a bill to strip all funding from NPR and PBS.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:31 am

  124. There is no direct federal funding of NPR, so I guess there’s no political downside in proposing a bill planning to block all federal funding of NPR.

    Back home, we call that grandstanding.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:37 am

  125. Well, I guess I shouldn’t say NO federal funding, but it’s a drop in the bucket.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:38 am

  126. 2%, right? That’s what I read from Norah O’Donnell, although Newsbusters claims her numbers are misleading:

    Norah’s 1-3% claim is based on the percentage of its budget that NPR receives in direct federal grants. But O’Donnell conveniently forgot to mention that about 40% of NPR’s budget comes from payments from its affiliate stations. And as MRC’s Tim Graham detailed here, those stations derive about 13% of their budgets from the feds. Getting a bit down in the weeds, that means that in addition to the 1-3% in direct funding, NPR is getting about 5% of its budget from federal funds directed to the affiliates and then funneled back to the NPR mothership.

    So . . . total percentage of NPR’s budget flowing from the feds is 6-8%, or at least double what Norah claimed.

    That’s not small change unless NPR has a bloated budget, which it might.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:41 am

  127. Then NPR should be happy to forego all the government money it takes, kmart. Since it is such a pittance. Moyer and the rest can fund it. Maybe some more Soros money will help.

    Comment by JD (4aa811) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:50 am

  128. Just eliminate all funding for CPB/NPR/PBS, and their affiliates; and once that’s done, the Endowments, the NGO’s, etc.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:55 am

  129. #

    Well, I guess I shouldn’t say NO federal funding, but it’s a drop in the bucket.

    Comment by Kman

    He said this earlier and then disappeared when I debunked it.

    You can tell he knows he’s lying because he uses weasel words.

    “There is no direct federal funding of NPR”

    Direct, eh? I wonder why you said direct, Kman. Is it because I told you that NPR has gotten hundreds of millions, indirectly? About half their budget, direct or indirect, from government supported entities?

    That’s right, NPR sucks in a tremendous amount of money, indirectly, from the taxpayer. You modifying your claim specifically to include ‘direct’ shows your dishonesty. You aren’t refuting anything, but you are making the point I think needs to be made.

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting needs to be defunded and shut down entirely. No law blocking public funds getting to NPR will work so long as democrats can weasel some way around the law.

    At any rate, once again, Kman conceded my point without admitting he was wrong. His “direct” modifier contradicts his earlier, more absolute claims.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:00 pm

  130. “NPR may need it, J Vaughn. Jim DeMint has announced that he will introduce a bill to strip all funding from NPR and PBS.”

    He probably means to attack CPB. So taking down things like big bird, elmo, Ken Burns, etc…

    Comment by imdw (47a9bf) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:00 pm

  131. Apart from the lefty political fare, as Michael Medved pointed out, PBS seems to produce a staple diet of shows about animals that mate and British people that don’t. If I’m interested, I can find that fare elsewhere.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:10 pm

  132. EdWood,

    I understand your point, and we agree NPR probably wanted to get rid of Williams because he worked for Fox News and didn’t fit in with the NPR mindset. However, I’m interested in how you decide what is social commentary and what is bigotry.

    Ifill asserted the “failure of news organizations, mostly newspapers, to support and promote people of color.” Her claim implies blanket racism in the entire media industry. Are today’s rules for social commentary so sweeping that an NPR senior correspondent gets a pass when she calls everyone in an industry racist? Meanwhile, Juan Williams gets canned because he admits he has fears about Muslims after 9/11.

    My feeling is this is about Williams and Fox News, but it is also about Muslims. Williams expressed doubts about the wrong group of people, and liberals can’t tolerate that.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:14 pm

  133. That’s right, NPR sucks in a tremendous amount of money, indirectly, from the taxpayer.

    Well sure! But, being indirect, I don’t know how you stop that, legislatively even if you wanted to.

    I suppose you could do, as some suggest here, go nuclear and suggest a total scorching of anything CPB-related, from Sesame Street to Ken Burns films to Masterpiece Theatre to (whatever could be the next Monty Python). But I think they’ll be widespread bipartisan opposition to that.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:16 pm

  134. CAIR sent a strongly worded letter to NPR following that Monday appearance by Juan Williams on “The O’Reilly Factor” – but I’m confident that NPR has never been influenced by angry letters.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:18 pm

  135. That’s very clever, Daleyrocks.

    But it is clever how NPR’s funding is twisted out of CPB. They know what they are doing. People would see this as canceling Elmo, instead of refusing to fund intolerance.

    If those shows are any good, they don’t need taxdollars. The reason NPR lies so much about its funding is precisely because NPR will not be able to exist as a pervasive broadcast outlet without substantial federal funding.

    What does “direct” mean, anyway? The CPB is the federal government, created by an act of congress. When they cut a check for a few ten million to NPR each year, how is that not direct? When they fund stations all over the country that send NPR 42% of its budget, how is that not direct?

    It’s indirect in the “the people already tried to defund NPR and this is how we work around democracy” way.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:19 pm

  136. In the coming months, we will undoubtedly hear PBS mention how beloved Elmo, Big Bird, and Barney are.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:20 pm

  137. I suppose you could do, as some suggest here, go nuclear and suggest a total scorching of anything CPB-related, from Sesame Street to Ken Burns films to Masterpiece Theatre to

    Yeah, that’s the boring talking point. I almost typed it in for you with a sockpuppet.

    It’s not true. No one is demanding Sesame Street be banned. Why would a hugely profitable show like Sesame Street need tax support? It doesn’t.

    Your point is dishonest.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:21 pm

  138. It was my understanding that “Elmo”, and “Sesame Street” were tremendous cash-cows for PBS due to the merchandise sales, and that this subsidized a lot of dreck that no-one in their right mind would pay for.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:22 pm

  139. My feeling is this is about Williams and Fox News, but it is also about Muslims. Williams expressed doubts about the wrong group of people, and liberals can’t tolerate that.

    It’s more like liberals can’t tolerate making broad generalizations about a group of people (any group of people)…. but, that said, I still don’t think the Muslim comment was the reason NPR decided to can Williams.

    This wasn’t the first time NPR and Williams have crossed swords about the fact that Williams was on Fox. NPR was uncomfortable with Williams being a partisan pundit on Fox, and a (supposedly) non-partisan analyst at NPR. NPR listeners frequently complained, and NPR had to address the issue last year.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:24 pm

  140. That’s right, NPR sucks in a tremendous amount of money, indirectly, from the taxpayer. -Dustin

    Well sure! -Kman

    Just so we all see: Kman has refuted his own initial point that NPR doesn’t take substantial taxpayer funds. He has no choice, since this is true. They are a huge drain on society in a time when we have run out of money, thanks to the democrat deficit from 2007 to today. The GOP’s $104 billion average deficit was bad, but the current one is insane, and we need to recognize that by cutting CPB entirely.

    If you like Sesame Street (I think it was better 20 years ago), by all means watch it on ABC.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:24 pm

  141. The reason NPR lies so much about its funding is precisely because NPR will not be able to exist as a pervasive broadcast outlet without substantial federal funding.

    Dustin, if NPR truly “lies about its funding” as you claim, then you don’t even NEED legislation to defund it. You simply prosecute it for filing false material with the SEC, and fine it into non-existence.

    You, of course, have evidence that NPR is lying about its funding (right?)….. If so, I think the SEC would be VERY interested in knowing what you know.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:29 pm

  142. NPR was uncomfortable with Williams being a partisan pundit on Fox, and a (supposedly) non-partisan analyst at NPR. NPR listeners frequently complained, and NPR had to address the issue last year.

    Comment by Kman

    This is actually probably right.

    NPR listeners are intolerant. Compared to Fox News listeners, they are straight up insane.

    Juan was well to the left of center, but that is just not left enough for many NPR listeners and its leadership. They aren’t complaining about the ‘teabagger’ cartoon, or Gwen Ifill being an ass to Sarah Palin again (or her praise Obama book), or any other number of partisan aspects of NPR. They are mad Juan is willing to consider Fox News legitimate. That’s what this is about. Fox News, far more trusted by voters and far more hated by the left. And why wouldn’t Fox be more trusted than NPR? They don’t fire people for telling the truth, after all.

    NPR listeners want liberal radio for liberal listeners, paid for by conservative taxpayers. They don’t care this isn’t what the people want. CPB can’t be trusted with federal funds.

    One thing I find interesting is that the left wants to investigate Gold Dealers, explicitly because they sponsor conservative free speech. They simply aren’t fans of our rights.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:30 pm

  143. You simply prosecute it for filing false material with the SEC, and fine it into non-existence.

    By “you” you mean Eric Holder, right?

    No, I’m not Eric Holder. If I were, your point would be reasonable.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:31 pm

  144. Kman:

    It’s more like liberals can’t tolerate making broad generalizations about a group of people (any group of people) …

    Then how can you tolerate Gwen Ifill saying the media and especially newspapers discriminate against “people of color”?

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:31 pm

  145. Just so we all see: Kman has refuted his own initial point that NPR doesn’t take substantial taxpayer funds. He has no choice, since this is true…

    Hahaha. Good one!

    I said NPR sucks in a tremendous amount of money indirectly from the taxpayer. That’s not the same has saying it draws “substantial taxpayer funds”. The key word is “indirectly”.

    Bottom line: if you think we’re going to make a serious dent in the deficit by defunding CPB entirely, you need to do the math.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:35 pm

  146. I just want to note that Kman is mischaracterizing Juan’s comments.

    His point was the opposite of being a bigot, by being frank about his feelings he found unreasonable.

    That said, there is a link between Islam and terrorism. Does that justify a broad generalization? It requires a discussion. One you can get from Fox News, but not from fascists.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:35 pm

  147. Bottom line: if you think we’re going to make a serious dent in the deficit by defunding CPB entirely, you need to do the math.

    Comment by Kman

    I already did. 4.2 billion per decade is not a serious dent in the deficit to you?

    It would have been during the GOP era. And by cutting it, we will get closer to the GOP’s $104 billion a year deficit. Not close enough, I suspect.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:36 pm

  148. Shorter Kman:

    Don’t cut that huge expensive program because the deficit is so high!

    At any rate, Kman, I admire your perseverance. I guess you’re anonymous and not embarrassed, but sheesh you have a hard time winning an argument.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:38 pm

  149. “You simply prosecute it for filing false material with the SEC, and fine it into non-existence.”

    Kman – What jurisdiction does the SEC have over NPR?

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:40 pm

  150. Then how can you tolerate Gwen Ifill saying the media and especially newspapers discriminate against “people of color”?

    I didn’t read her book, but I don’t think she said that. I think she said that they didn’t do enough to support people of color, which doesn’t mean that they discriminate against them.

    And how can I “tolerate” her saying that? Because I don’t know (and honestly, don’t care) if it is true or not. Just not one of those things that crosses my radar.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:41 pm

  151. “I said NPR sucks in a tremendous amount of money indirectly from the taxpayer. That’s not the same has saying it draws “substantial taxpayer funds”. The key word is “indirectly”.”

    Kman – If the money is still coming from taxpayer funds, why does it matter if it is direct or indirect? We’re, or at least I’m, paying for it. Adding a middle man or two does not change the substance of how it is funded.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:45 pm

  152. That’s a good point, Daleyrocks. Another is that the government fining itself is not much of a solution. It certainly would be ‘out of existence’. I think part of Kman’s pose is that he’s a successful lawyer, for some reason, so he had to throw “SEC” in there.

    It’s clear CPB and NPR worked around the defunding movement from years back. I don’t see how they broke the law for working around it, but it’s tiresome pointing out every strawman.

    At any rate, I want them defunded whether kman thinks they are criminals or not.

    We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan’s comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.

    -NPR

    They seem to care a lot about their money. For all the moaning about private media’s concerns for money, NPR is explicit in seeing this through green lenses.

    Palin says it should be National Private Radio. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets her way.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:46 pm

  153. I didn’t read her book, but I don’t think she said that.

    Shorter Kman: I know stuff.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:48 pm

  154. 4.2 billion per decade is not a serious dent in the deficit to you?

    It would have been during the GOP era.

    Yeah, I know. You HAVE deficits in the GOP era. Not so much when a Democrat is in the White House.

    Kman – What jurisdiction does the SEC have over NPR?

    Sorry, IRS. Dustin is basically accusing them of fraud… so if you really want to go after NPR, that’s how you do it.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:56 pm

  155. Yeah, I know. You HAVE deficits in the GOP era. Not so much when a Democrat is in the White House.

    It’s the House of representatives that has primary power of the purse, Kman. Bill Clinton ran a deficit every single year he was in office (the debt grew every year). Surplus projections are a stupid argument so long after we know what actually happened, but this is even more pathetic when the US President is a Democrat whose lowest deficit is 4 times higher than when Bush was president.

    Sorry, IRS. Dustin is basically accusing them of fraud

    Hahaha. I say they acted contrary to the will of the people. That’s fraud in a sense, just as Obamacare is undemocratic, but I don’t see how you’re interpreting my comments this way. Except you’re just creating a hysterical straw man.

    You claim I want to scorch sesame street, and ask me to prosecute CPB if I am serious about defunding them. This is debate by throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

    I guess that’s what’s up with the deficit comments. You want to change the subject from NPR’s atrocious behavior.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:01 pm

  156. Kman – If the money is still coming from taxpayer funds, why does it matter if it is direct or indirect?

    Because it’s harder to legislate against the indirect. What are you going to do — “I’m not giving you a tax credit if you take some of that money and contribute to NPR?”

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:05 pm

  157. Kman,

    I haven’t read Ifill’s book, either. The comment I quoted above was the last line of this Washington Post profile dated September 4, 2008:

    To the extent she can carve out any spare time, Ifill is working on a book called “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” She focuses on the Democratic nominee and such up-and-coming black politicians as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Newark Mayor Cory Booker.

    “We’re very lazy when we think about race in this country,” Ifill says. “We try to put it in a box. It’s Jesse versus Al, or Jesse and Al versus everyone else,” she says, referring to Jackson and Sharpton. “We love simplistic conflict. There’s a whole group of people who have Ivy League degrees and immense accomplishments who actually benefited from the things their parents were fighting for.”

    So why aren’t there more of them in the media ranks at the Republican convention?

    “You have to look hard,” Ifill says. “That’s a failure of news organizations, mostly newspapers, to support and promote people of color.”

    You said “liberals can’t tolerate making broad generalizations about a group of people (any group of people)”.

    Do you disagree Ifill was criticizing the media for not doing enough for “people of color”? If you really care about broad generalizations about any group of people, how can you tolerate this?

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:12 pm

  158. Hahaha. I say they acted contrary to the will of the people.

    No you said: “The reason NPR lies so much about its funding is precisely because….” (#133)

    And no, I’m not accusing of wanting to scorch Sesame Street. I don’t think you said that. I’m just saying that realistically, I think that if you WANTED to defund NPR in any effectual way, you would have to gut or entirely defund CPB. And I think there would be resistance to that. That’s just my opinion; maybe Masterpiece Theatre isn’t as popular as I think (I know I don’t watch it, but clearly somebody must).

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:13 pm

  159. “Because it’s harder to legislate against the indirect.”

    Kman – I think you are demonstrating a basic lack of understanding of the subject matter here. Congratulations.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:14 pm

  160. Do you disagree Ifill was criticizing the media for not doing enough for “people of color”? If you really care about broad generalizations about any group of people, how can you tolerate this?

    Well, she was asked the question about why there aren’t more people of color in the media at the GOP convention. It was a generalized question, and her answer pointed to an industry, not so much a “group of people”.

    Now, if she had said, “I blame white people” or “I blame men” or “I blame the Jews in the media”, then I would have had a problem.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:21 pm

  161. btw, to the extent that this conversation is still about william (i honestly don’t know, i haven’t read much of it) i will note that there is a new williams related thread, so you might consider taking it there.

    or not. i really don’t care.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:25 pm

  162. Kman:

    What are you going to do — “I’m not giving you a tax credit if you take some of that money and contribute to NPR?”

    DeMint apparently wants to block federal funding for NPR and PBS, but I think the tax-exempt status of these and the related PBS Foundation should be reviewed, especially now that they plan to go into the local news business.

    By the way, donations to a tax-exempt organization are tax deductible. To my knowledge, no taxpayer gets a tax credit for charitable or related donations.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:26 pm

  163. Dems are not running gifreakingnormous deficits since 2006 ?! Whah ?! Ifill’s tweets are sweet too.

    Comment by JD (04ebf2) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:28 pm

  164. Kman,

    It sounds like you want to pretend I said things I didn’t say, while denying the things you did say. You will add a weasel word here and there, which looks an awful lot like you already know you’re wrong.

    You indeed claimed people are suggesting “a total scorching of anything CPB-related, from Sesame Street.” Now you backtrack, saying you don’t think I said that yet, even though you referenced me directly when saying that.

    You said I accused fraud and the only reasonable response is for me to somehow personally prosecute… when pressed, you weasel that around to my actual point that NPR is dishonest about where they get their political claims, such as how much funding they receive. You’re insane to suggest this is a realistic way to shut down NPR.

    You’re right, CPB must be defunded completely. There is a non-trivial chance that is going to happen. Oh sure, you’ll wail about Big Bird, but when Big Bird winds up on TV anyway, you’ll shut up.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:29 pm

  165. Kman:

    Well, she was asked the question about why there aren’t more people of color in the media at the GOP convention. It was a generalized question, and her answer pointed to an industry, not so much a “group of people”.

    Now, if she had said, “I blame white people” or “I blame men” or “I blame the Jews in the media”, then I would have had a problem.

    So criticizing all media executives as a group is okay, but expressing concerns about people based on their race, gender or religion isn’t.

    Do you think it’s fair to make generalizations about entire industries and their executives when you don’t allow similar generalizations about specific races, genders or religions?

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:34 pm

  166. Comment by Kman — 10/22/2010 @ 1:05 pm

    If someone wishes to contribute, under the laws for charity, to NPR, and take a tax-deduction for that, that is between them and NPR and the IRS.
    What we have advocated is that ALL Federal Funding cease for CPB/PBS/NPR and all of their affiliates, or any governmental entity at any level that funds such organizations through “pass-through”.
    How difficult is that to understand?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:47 pm

  167. DRJ:

    So criticizing all media executives as a group is okay, but expressing concerns about people based on their race, gender or religion isn’t.

    I don’t think she was referring to “media executives”. She was referring to the industry. You know, sometimes corporations and entire industries act in ways that individuals wouldn’t.

    Dustin:

    You indeed claimed people are suggesting “a total scorching of anything CPB-related, from Sesame Street.” Now you backtrack, saying you don’t think I said that yet, even though you referenced me directly when saying that.

    I don’t reference you when I said that. I specifically said that “some here” have suggested “scorching anything CPB-related”, because some here have suggested that (AD-RtR/OS for example). And I said, if (IF!) you wanted to go that route…..

    You see, I try not to put words in your mouth. Unlike you.

    You’re right, CPB must be defunded completely. There is a non-trivial chance that is going to happen. Oh sure, you’ll wail about Big Bird, but when Big Bird winds up on TV anyway, you’ll shut up.

    Well, I won’t wail, but I think soccer moms and many others — many of whom vote Republican — will wail. Which is why I think it has zero % change of being defunded completely.

    Comment by Kman (d25c82) — 10/22/2010 @ 1:56 pm

  168. I’m pretty late to the conversation here, but I wanted to point out that more conservatives may be supporting NPR without realizing it!

    I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. There is a radio station KXT 91.7, which is about a year old. It is a NPR member station. They are publicly supported and currently in the middle of their annual fund raising drive. This is a radio station that I truly enjoy and I want to see continue. I have the means and ability to contribute to them. Most of my time listening to the radio is when I am in my car. Each time I have heard them talking about the fund raising effort I tell myself that I should go make a donation. But I’ve never gotten around to actually going to the website and making a donation. I’m glad I didn’t because earlier today I was reading an article on The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/22/juan-williams-calls-for-the-government-to-defund-npr/#ixzz137baae6p) that had the following blurb:

    About two percent of NPR’s budget comes from grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the organization receives dues from local member stations that are largely taxpayer-funded.

    I sent KXT a message from their website today asking specifically if they could guarantee that my contribution would not go to NPR, but I have not received a response yet.

    I seriously doubt that liberals are the only ones who support these member stations. How many people realize their donations are in part supporting NPR? While I knew the station was somehow connected to NPR, I never made that connection about my possible financial donations to the station until today. I was thinking in terms of how much I enjoy the station and their programming, not in terms of NPR.

    Food for thought for music lovers…

    Comment by deanna157 (f211d6) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:11 pm

  169. Drj, Yes. It is Ok to criticize a group of people as long as it is based on facts and not based on race, gender, or religion. It is only prejudiced when one does not have sufficient information to make such a judgement. Therefore, “criticizing all media executives” may or may not be prejudiced. Judgements about people based on race, gender, or religion are almost always prejudiced because they are overgeneralizations of huge groups of individuals. “media executives” is a rather small group of people with many similarities, and as such comparisons are fair game.

    Comment by Chris Hooten (c42dab) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:14 pm

  170. I don’t reference you when I said that

    You quoted me, and then used the term “you” specifically to address me.

    I can’t respond to your volume of BS very well. I just can’t keep up.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:16 pm

  171. Drj, Yes. It is Ok to criticize a group of people

    How about to generalize, Chris?

    Respond to DRJ accurately.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:17 pm

  172. Chris Hooten:

    “media executives” is a rather small group of people with many similarities, and as such comparisons are fair game.

    So generalizing is okay when the group is smaller than something. There aren’t many liberals in my city. May I generalize about them?

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:21 pm

  173. Kman:

    I don’t think she was referring to “media executives”. She was referring to the industry. You know, sometimes corporations and entire industries act in ways that individuals wouldn’t.

    No, I don’t know this. Why don’t you explain it to me.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:21 pm

  174. One of the problems with the NPR/PBS world is that it, like the “Foundation World”, is a closed society:
    There are no stockholders per se in your local PBS outlet to vote on the policies of the station(s) or to elect board members,
    only crony-appointed board members who all run in the same circles, and belong to the same organizations.
    How else can you explain that the president of KCET here in Los Angeles pays himself $426K, and his ExVP $251K,
    or that the CEO of NPR is paid 3X the salary of The President of the United States?
    There is no outside oversight of these stations.
    They are staffed by what Glenn Reynolds likes to call the “credentialed, not educated” who went to the right schools, and know the right people.
    They consider themselves the creme de la creme of The Ruling Class, and the actions of Vivian Schiller and Ellen Weiss are not atypical.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:37 pm

  175. AD, #174

    The Dog Trainer has an article about KCET’s feud with PBS over the network’s charges for PBS programs like Masterpiece Theater, Nova, etc.

    It seems PBS in true liberal fashion has a “progressive” fee structure. That is the more money a local station takes in, the more PBS charges for its programs. KCET received a $25M grant from, wait for it, BP. However, the grant specifies that none of it can be used for administrative costs. But PBS still wants its cut.

    KCET has given notice that it will not carry PBS programming after Jan 1, 2011. Of course it will continue to pay generous salaries to its execs that you mentioned.

    Comment by Stu707 (0b95d4) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:41 pm

  176. So generalizing is okay when the group is smaller than something. There aren’t many liberals in my city. May I generalize about them?

    Oh, please do, please do. There aren’t many liberals in my new hometown, either. Perhaps the sound of artillery fire scared them off. You know how liberals are around big guns and all.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:45 pm

  177. “NPR listeners are intolerant. Compared to Fox News listeners, they are straight up insane.”
    Ah the bigotry contained in this statement is exquisite! No job for you at NPR Dustin!
    Now if you had said SOME NPR listeners are intolerant, that would have been a comment on some NPR listeners in line with the context of your post above, and more like a criticism than bigotry.

    DRJ- I can see what you are saying about Ifill’s comments on the “media” and how generalizations like that smack of prejudice, but “the media” is still an institution made up of all sorts of people and her generalizations are arguably a sort of shorthand critique or expression of frustration and aren’t necessarily directed at any one person or race etc. Was she criticizing the person who hired her? Probably not. I personally find sweeping generalizations like that to be pretty dumb though…. especially when they have just left my own mouth during a conversation.
    One could certainly see where people in an industry who had worked pretty hard to do “the right thing” would feel put upon. And of course people who had hired the best persons for the job regardless of gender,race etc. would feel put upon by a generalization like that as well.

    Comment by EdWood (38b402) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:02 pm

  178. EdWood chastises someone on the right for overgeneralization, takes a breath, then defends someone on the left who is guilty of overgeneralization.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/22/2010 @ 11:17 pm

  179. Apparently, some overgeneralizations are good. It seems to depend on the speaker and the target. Teabaggers are racists is quite fine.

    Comment by JD (b49131) — 10/23/2010 @ 5:49 am

  180. Go back to directing the remake of ‘Glen or Glenda’

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/23/2010 @ 6:45 am

  181. It’s become impossible to make it through a conversation with anyone on the left without incurring slurs of bigotry. I’ve incurred it multiple times merely talking about the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment—I’m an alleged sexist and a homophobe because I’ve argued that, under the original meaning, it wouldn’t have granted the full panoply of substantive rights to women and homosexuals.

    The name-calling is a cheap tactic. And hurling around the word “bigot” is particularly troubling when directed at someone like Juan Williams, as I blogged here: http://notesfrombabel.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/you-keep-using-that-word%E2%80%A6i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

    Comment by Tim Kowal (1023f6) — 10/23/2010 @ 11:33 am

  182. “I’ve incurred it multiple times merely talking about the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment—I’m an alleged sexist and a homophobe because I’ve argued that, under the original meaning, it wouldn’t have granted the full panoply of substantive rights to women and homosexuals.”

    Specially interesting since even the originalists on the court found that the 5th amendment prohibited racial discrimination.

    Comment by imdw (16090e) — 10/23/2010 @ 12:39 pm

  183. I’m not defending Ifill John Hitchcock, I’m explaining my perception of the difference between her comments and Juan Williams’ comments.

    For instance JD the comment “teabaggers are racists” is bigotry because you are tarring a whole group of people from an amazing mix of backgrounds based on the actions, posters, or words of a few of those individuals.
    The criticism “the Tea Party doesn’t do enough to provide opportunity for people of color” (which may or may not imply that it contains a lot of racists depending on who levels the criticism and how one interprets their words) is not bigotry because you are making a criticism of a political party. It might be a sweeping overgeneralization of limited value though, as Ifill’s statement probably was. I mean, how do you quantify what level of effort is “enough” to provide opportunity for any group seeking more representation in an industry…. assuming you would want to do that instead of hiring the best person for the job?

    Tim Kowal- What an odd statement. Here’s an easy way to get through a conversation with a “liberal” or anyone else without incurring accusations of bigotry: You don’t make sweeping, baseless, accusatory statements like
    “NPR listeners are intolerant. Compared to Fox News listeners, they are straight up insane”… or the reverse of course if you were a lib talking to a con.

    Comment by EdWood (38b402) — 10/23/2010 @ 1:00 pm

  184. BS, Ed. Disagree with a liberal and be called racist. Don’t support Barcky. Racist. Reduce the tax burden on people and corporations. Racist. Agree with the President on same sex marriage. Everyone that does that, except the President, is a homophobe. The list is practically endless.

    Comment by JD (eb1dfe) — 10/23/2010 @ 1:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4450 secs.