Media

Juan Gone

|

Here's a Washington Post headline for you: "NPR fires Juan Williams over anti-Muslim remarks." What were the "anti-Muslim remarks" in question? These:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," he said. "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams then brought up a statement made in a New York courtroom this month by Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani American who pleaded guilty to trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square and was sentenced to life in prison.

"He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.

That latter half cannot be the objectionable bit, so we're left with this 21st century ask-the-ethicist puzzler: Is it now "anti-Muslim" to admit your anxiety when seeing an Orthodox-looking Muslim on Islamic terrorists' most infamous weapon of mass murder? I think if you stated that most Muslims are a threat (a much more declarative formulation than "I get worried" about "people who are in Muslim garb"), or that all Muslims should be singled out for special scrutiny, or that our basic policy problem is with Muslims, then you might be getting warmer. But later in the O'Reilly interview, Williams specifically repudiated all three of those sentiments:

WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don't say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That's crazy.

Later, in a crosstalk-heavy exchange about Germany's Muslim integration issues, there was this:

O'REILLY: Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there or the Germans? […] Who's causing the problem?

WILLIAMS: I think—I think—no, no, wait. See, you did it again. It's extremists. It's people who refuse to —

O'REILLY: It's not extremists.

WILLIAMS: It's a German society. They are the ones causing that problem.

And then there was this:

WILLIAMS: But, Bill, here's a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby's neck and says he's attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero —

[…]

WILLIAMS: I don't know what is in that guy's head. But I'm saying, we don't want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly and they act crazy. We've got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.

O'REILLY: He is a nut. And I said that about the guy in Florida—who wanted to burn the Koran. I came down on him like crazy.

WILLIAMS: Correct. There you go.

Williams' firing is a clarifying moment in media mores. You can be Islamophobic, in the form of refusing to run the most innocuous imaginable political cartoons out of a broad-brush fear of Muslims, but you can't admit it, even when the fear is expressed as a personal feeling and not a group description, winnowed down to the very specific and nightmare-exhuming act of riding on an airplane, and uttered in a context of otherwise repudiating collective guilt and overbroad fearmongering.  

I think Williams' worried/nervous comments were much too broad–I see zero reason to ever feel anxiety if a 100-year-old woman in traditional Islamic headdress is sitting next to me on a plane–and it's been a long time since I recall the heart rate quickening at the sight of a bearded and nervous young man in Islamic garb standing in front of me in an airport security line. But I have felt that heightened sense of anxiety in the past, and if it wasn't a common enough sensation you probably wouldn't see satire like this:

According to the depiction on NPR's own website, this episode seems to have a political back story that I suspect plays a strong role:

NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it is severing his contract. "His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," the statement read.

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.

His status was earlier shifted from staff correspondent to analyst after he took clear-cut positions about public policy on television and in newspaper opinion pieces.

I hope NPR gets more specific about which "editorial standards and practices" in particular were violated here, so we can best tailor our archive searches.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

306 responses to “Juan Gone

  1. Yes because of course a terrorist would wear full “orthodox” gear to blend in before trying something evil.

    Wait what?

    1. Also my first thought. Even a total incompetent like Richard Reid (though he did have a crazy beard) dressed like everyone else.

    2. Reverse psychology. Those terrorists are nefarious.

    3. You misunderstand. Juan was saying his reaction was not fair… but it was there nevertheless. He was saying we all have to overcome that kind of reaction…

      But I guess to understand “nuance” you can’t be a liberal.

      The Liberal mind is closed. Even to those who believe exactly the same things they do yet express it in a different way. Especially if it is expressed on Fox.

      Soros, et. al can’t get to Fox or anyone on the right… (Glenn Beck) so he, they, took it out on Juan.

      All liberals are pawns in Soro’s game. Individuals matter not… it is the end game that is all important.

      I bet you agree with the end game. I think none of us really know what the end game really is and if we did none of us would agree with it! Not even you.

      1. I think you give Soros a bit too much credit.

        1. He probably doesn’t give Soros enough credit. A George Soros original: “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

      2. Airplane travel is already a common phobia, but now there’s terrorism. The point is not that you think you’ve spotted a suspect, but that you’re reminded of a cultural clash taken to extremes where terrorists consider themselves Muslims and other Muslims agree to the point of covering their entire bodies except their eyes, a blatant rejection of our culture and any assimilation. The “traditional” garb Williams was referring to looks an awful lot like a ski mask with black clothes and is meant to intimidate.

    4. His point is about overcoming gut reactions.

    5. Yes because of course a terrorist would wear full “orthodox” gear to blend in before trying something evil.

      I don’t believe he claimed it was rational.

    6. The whole point is not whether or not Juan Williams expressed fear is logical. The point is that it is the honest thing to do to express such views and firing him is the stupidest response.

      The unwillingness of so many media sources to mention Muhammad in any way, while at the same time they vilify anyone who has issues with the government funding pornographic art depicting Jesus, is very disturbing.

  2. “His remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR,” the statement read.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. The Washington Post headline is wrong – Williams was fired because he broke NPR’s rules, not because of “anti-Muslim” remarks. When he got a job at NPR, he agreed not to offer his opinions in the media. He broke his contract, so they fired him.

      1. That’s stupid. His job at Fox has been to offer his opinion… for years. He has always worked for both NPR and Fox with his job at Fox as a opinion person.

        NPR and the new boss there… Soros, want to stop the “fair and balanced” slogan. Juan is a big part of that.

      2. He’s a commentator, not an anchorman. That’s hooey, if it’s even serious.

  3. Ugh, I hate Juan Williams. It looks like the stupid at NPR run right from the anchors to the top.

    1. I hate Juan Williams

      That’s just straight up racist.

    2. I don’t hate him, I have a healthy respect for him, because at least he will entertain valid arguments even if these conflict with his. Also, he’s candid and honest about his views, to the point that he got fired by the PC crowd.

      1. Also this.

      2. You just like him because his name is Juan. ;0)

      3. Just like poor Helen Thomas right?

        1. Re: Tony,

          Just like poor Helen Thomas right?

          Well, her sister was flattened by a falling house, so . . .

          1. Jeez, Tony, talk about false equivalency…

        2. Which valid arguments conflicting with her own did Helen Thomas entertain?

          I almost never agree with Williams but he almost always goes beyond talking points and emotion so it’s pretty easy to respect him while disagreeing with him.

        3. There’s a huge difference between proudly holding and espousing a prejudiced opinion, and admitting that one has had prejudiced emotional reactions. The latter is unavoidable human nature. As we discussed yesterday re being gay, having feelings is largely involuntary, acting on those feelings is a choice. He got fired for being honest about something that is true for many people, left or right (assuming you buy that it was because of this, and not just an excuse to further insulate the lefty echo chamber).

        4. Remember when Juan Williams told all the Muslims to go back to Mecca? Tony does.

        5. Helen Thomas’ comment implied malice.

        6. Who did Mr. Williams say should be sent to where their distant relatives where killed in a holocaust. Oh right, absolutely no one.

          Ms. Thomas implied that the Jews of Israel, most of whose ancestors were somewhere in the Middle-East when Hitler came to power, should be sent to the parts of Europe where millions were gassed.

      4. And he debates TeamRed and Libertarian, ideas without engaging in ad hominem. If he had just thrown in a few cheap shot insults per month he probably wouldn’t have gotten fired.

  4. NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it is severing his contract. “His remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR,” the statement read.

    This from the same editoral office that published a cartoon titled “How To Speak Tea Bag.”

    1. Totenberg still works there despite her wishing of AIDS on Helms and his grandchildren, doesn’t she?

      1. Did she manage to restrain herself from cheering when Mr. Helms died?

  5. That’s what he gets for crossing the King and Soros media machine. You cant’t play in that evil Murdoch’s sandbox and expect to be welcome back.

    1. *looks for his media tinfoil hat*

    2. Why are taxpayers funding a Soros forum?

  6. I see zero reason to ever feel anxiety if a 100-year-old woman in traditional Islamic headdress is sitting next to me on a plane[…]

    That is, until you hear the kaboom!, the Earth-shattering kaboom!

    1. I’d be more afraid of the metrosexual Muslims that shaved all their body hair. I mean if we are to learn anything from 9-11, radical Muslims, and airplanes.

      1. According to askaniman, hair removal is an important part of Islam.

        1. I thought that was just women. They like them smooth and childlike.

  7. I think it has more to do with his work on Fox News more than anything. I think that Mara Liasson had issues with NPR over her work at Fox as well.

    1. Without people like Williams and Liason FOX wouldn’t be able to tout their fair and balanced mantra. Me thinks this is the way NPR sees it and why they have a problem with it.

    2. Juan Williams and Mara Liasson should both be off NPR for being closed-minded partisan hacks. But not for this.

      1. Do you also call for the firing of the hateful hacks like Totenburg?

  8. *searching for words*

    This is MSNBC-level stupid. I’m not a Juan Williams fan (racist, I know), but how they get to “you’re fired” from that exchange on O’Dipshit’s program….?????

    Fuck NPR, and stop funding them with stolen money. Hey, a guy can dream…

  9. he took clear-cut positions about public policy

    That was his mistake. To thrive on NPR and PBS, your political biases must be subtle and soft-spoken; as threatening as a tote bag full of Andre Rieu DVDs.

  10. Juan Williams: because you can be liberal and not be a douche about Fox News.

    1. I’m not sure what about Juan Williams isn’t douchey. However, even a douche doesn’t deserve to be fired for THIS.

  11. I think saying that it’s a “fact” that America is at war with Muslims in general is pretty objectionable. And to say that people wearing “Muslim garb” (aka the clothing that is commonly worn by Arabs in their homelands) are “identifying themselves as Muslims first and foremost” and are thus perceived as a threat shows him to be a chauvinistic wimp.

    I mean, it’s the equivalent of Egyptians saying that a guy walking through Cairo in a suit and tie is wearing “Christian garb” and is “identifying himself first and foremost as a Christian”.

    1. funny, it seems dumb, but I don’t find that offensive. What about a kid wearing a hoodie, hemp necklace, and sandals is wearing “stoner garb” and is “identifiying himself first and foremost as a stoner”.

      Nope, not offensive.

      1. I’m pretty sure that would be offensive to Tulpa.

        1. What isn’t? He clutches his pearls so much he probably goes through three necklaces a week.

          1. All I saw was “Tulpa”, “pearl”, and “necklace”. Dude, I just ate, you sick fuck.

            1. Did you have pearl jam? Is there something you’d like to tell us?

            2. Don’t blame Sug for where your diseased mind takes you.

        2. Just because Tulpa wears hemp sandals.

      2. Nice try, but a hemp necklace is a gratuitous display of stonerhood. It’s meant to identify oneself as a stoner.

        There’s not a pervasive stoner culture dominant in any geographical area, as is the case with Arabs. No one just learns to wear hemp necklaces as a child and never questions it.

        1. are you sure? Ever been to Madrid, New Mexico? It’s like ex-hippie and children of ex-hippie appalachia in the desert. It’s their culture, they don’t question it.

          1. Always try to pass through Madrid (say Mad’ rid) whenever I’m in New Mexico. Mendocino in the desert – circa 1967.

    2. America is at war with radical Islam… who do you think al Qaeda is? The Taliban? The guy who almost blew Times Square to kingdom come?

      It’s like saying the Confederate states didn’t actually fire on Fort Sumter or secede from the United States.

    3. It’s odd how it seems that one side views the US at war with islam while the other side is doing all it can to say it isn’t at war with islam.

      It’d be nice if we stopped going to war against stupid things.

      1. Read the Koran. It is Islam saying Islam is at war with the United States.
        If Islam is not actively at war,at the moment, then we are in one of those truce periods while Islam gathers its strength before going back to active war.

    4. A guy wearing a suit identifies himself first and foremost as either a businessman or well-heeled, in an Egyptian setting, a guy who wants to look westernized. It has nothing to do with his religion.

      Muslim garb, on the other hand, is just that – directly related to the person’s religion. I don’t see any Joos or Buddhists wearing a hijab or bhurka.

      1. Perhaps a suit and tie is a bad example, because our culture’s common attire has been adopted by people around the world. But the point is, someone wearing what Williams describes as “Muslim garb” would not be regarded as religious attire by people on the streets of an Arab city. It’s just what Arabs wear.

        1. No, it’s not. Christian Arabs don’t wear burqas or hijabs or dishdashas.

          1. No, it’s not. Christian Arabs don’t wear burqas or hijabs or dishdashas.

            Do non-Arab Muslism wear burhkas and hijabs?

        2. Joos will wear streimels, yarmulkes, payas, and sheitels as if the path to godliness involves dressing like an 18th century Polish peasant. But they’re not flying planes into buildings and trying to kill anyone who draws Moses, so people don’t get nervous about them in airplanes.

          Behind the counter at a jewelry store, however, they ought to worry you.

    5. Juan actually said that Muslims have declared their war on us, as shown by his referring to the Times Square bomber’s own words attesting to that. It is a fact that radical Islamists – remember Bin Laden’s declaration? – have been at war with us for decades but we are just pretending not to listen (in between bombings).

      1. I wasn’t aware that one person had the authority to declare war on behalf of the billion or so Muslims scattered around the world.

        1. What the hell do you think fatwas are, and why do you think Salman Rushdie is still hiring bodyguards?

          Or is this level of obtuseness on your part merely a sardonic ploy, and I have been suckered-in?

          1. What the hell do you think fatwas are

            They’re certainly not legally binding declarations of war…and none of the people mentioned even have the religious authority to issue a fatwa.

            why do you think Salman Rushdie is still hiring bodyguards

            Because all it takes is one person to kill him, not an entire religion as you dolts posit we are at war with.

            1. Dude, before you name dolts, you should learn to parse sentences more closely.

              The claim was that extremist muslims are at war with the US – you know, like they said they were.

              What you won’t find is anyplace where I subscribe to a war on any particular religion, even if I personally find them bizarre and pointless.

              Lastly – it was the Ayatolla Khomeni (you know, the one who founded the Islamic revolutionary state in Iran) who placed the fatwa on Rushdie. Iran is explicitly a country founded on a particular sect of a particular religion, one that pretends to speak for many millions of Iranians at least (likely lots of Syrians, Iraqis and Lebanese as well). So it seems to me that a fatwa from the founder of a successful revolutionary movement is just a hair different than one lone nut with a knief, ala Theo Van Gogh.

              We aren’t at war with all of them, but some of them are at war with most or all of us. This makes Juan scared (frankly, being a lefty it seems lots of things make Juan scared), but since Juan holds feelings that are not on the officially approved list, expression of said feelings is a firing offense.

              What could go wrong with that?

    6. OBL says America is at war with Islam, and that’s why he blew up the WTC.

    7. Tulpa, your analogy does not make sense. No Christian claims there is a religious imperative to where a suit. Many Muslims claim that their clothing is religiously required.

  12. So this story impacts the 3 people who listen to NPR. And those people are only listening to have their ignorance reinforced. So yawn.

    1. If only 3 people around you listen to NPR every morning, count yourself lucky. It runs to about 85% listenership around here, with one or two hour-long conversations about the subjects they received rightthink about.

      1. Hey, at least you’re forewarned as to what all the bien pensants are using as their current meme, right?

      2. I feel bad for you. That would suck. I’m Columbus west side. Not many NPR listeners out here. I’m sure there’s probably some on campus (OSU) though. Not as bad as some other colleges though. It’s more the faculty. I don’t think we have as many students that get sucked into that stuff. I could be wrong though. Hope not.

        1. It’s all overheard, I’ve trained them all not to talk to me about politics. They know I’m a libertarian, but they are sort of confused by it. Unlike the *gasp*Republican who worked in another branch that had that fact brought up in the meeting that led him not to get his contract renewed (how universities manage to fire people.)

          1. Isn’t groupthink pleasant to be around? Luckily they’re easily confused.

            1. I occasionally distract them with a shiny coin while mumbling about the disparate racial impact of the Drug War.

        2. Ohio State seems to me to be a place chock full of NPR-listeners. What else explains Obama taking the Oval over for his personal pep rally?

      3. My morning drive-time is split between NPR and ESPN’s Mike and Mike Show.
        If I’m late arriving, I’ll listen to Glenn Beck at 9.
        Yes. I’m a sick fuck.

        1. I just can’t listen to people talking on the radio. It puts me to sleep. For me, the iPod is the greatest invention of our age. Followed closely by the TiVo.

        2. Can I add that my drive is from Columbus’ West Side? You need to get out more, AlmightyjB.

          1. I get out quite a bit. Let’s just say every bartender along Hilliard-Rome Rd knows me by name:) Glad I’m not car pooling with you. I find Glenn Beck to be one of the most annoying talking heads out there. I would consider him to be the flip-side of the same coin as NPR. Can’t stand the smug, the drama, the hyperbole, among many other things.

            1. “…every bartender along Hilliard-Rome Rd….”
              Gotcha. So your world extends from Otie’s in Hilliard to the Hooters near Meijer’s and on to Mugsy’s south of I-70. You really DO get around!

              1. Or he just gets kicked out of a lot of bars, CN.

              2. It extends a little further than that but I was specifically talking about the west side in my original post.

            2. Flip side, yes… if you mean funny. Why is it the Liberals have no sense of humour? Clearly, they thought it high humour to make fun of Bush… but it is racist to make fun of Obama.

              Poor liberals they are missing the best humour in a lifetime!

        3. You are a masochist of the highest order. You probably like being burned with cigarettes and having your balls electroshocked too.

      4. We have one (out of seven) NPR devotees in my office. His office is next to mine so I tune into rightwing talk radio while blasting FOX News just to piss him off. Great fun!

      5. Their one hour retrospective on the intertwined history of bongos and coffee was awesome.

        1. The Coffee Party Lives!

    2. NPR has the largest audience of any news source. Hands down. (around 20 million).

      1. That’s because they’re used as the once-every-half-hour news update by so many stations.

        When people are tuning into FoxNews we know it’s because of the news/opinion content, nothing else. When people tune into a college radio or classical music station, it’s questionable whether they’re there for the news or not.

      2. Only because it is meshed in between broadcasts of classical music, which I bet has about 20 million listeners. I normally just change channels while it is on; their “news” reporters are quite the “spin doctors.”

      3. Ahhh, the joys of understanding how something is measured.

      4. NPR has the largest audience of any news source. Hands down. (around 20 million).

        If that is the case, then why do I owe them even a single dime?

        1. I have a theory. NPR has the same functions as a church does, in a certain segment of society. It provides a platform for phatic speech to the converted, righteous outrage at the heathen, and on Sunday you get to gather for the traditional Prarie Home Companion hymn-singing and general spreading of the Good News.

          The only church I ever attended were Unitarian Universalist, the experience of which makes me think it represents a transitional evolutionary form between church-goin’ and NPR-lovin’ folks – but all the trappings are still there, including Sunday School (shudder).

          1. Oh, I always thought that NPR was the step before Unitarianism. I guess I just can not like a church that tries to promote polymory. They are the most anti-moral organization in existence.

    3. I like NPR. Sorry. Though I will say that it has gotten rather more grating at times in the past few years. As I have said elsewhere, it is still a hell of a lot better than any other broadcast news source.

      1. Agreed. The liberal bias is irritating, but it, along with the newshour, goes far more in depth than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or anything else not in print.

        1. Agreed. The liberal bias is irritating, but it, along with the newshour, goes far more in depth than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or anything else not in print.

          There are some things you just don’t want to get deep in.

  13. The liberals are beginning to eat their own, the same way conservatives did near the end of the Bush regime.

  14. I think either statement would have been acceptable along, but when a writer say that he feels nervous every time he sees a traditionally dressed Muslim and follows up by saying America is at war with Muslims, I have no interest in employing him.

    1. Juan Williams referenced Faisal Shazad’s statement that “The war with Muslim’s is just beginning.” It is no secret that a number of Muslims across the globe are sympathetic to the extremists or are extremist themselves. We don’t need to start sticking our heads in the sand about general Muslim hatred for the US in order to approach this issue with civility.

      1. Your last sentence has nothing to do with the first.

        General Muslim /= a number of Muslims

        hatred for US /= sympathetic to extremists or extremists themselves

        1. If a larger number of Muslims have a great dislike for the US than other groups, then it stands to reason that in general, Muslims have a greater hatred for the US. I would explain to Juan, if I could, that the percentage of Muslims who actually are extreme enough to commit violence would make it silly to actually be concerned for the safety of the flight, but if you took a random sampling of people, the Muslims would likely have a far lower opinion of the US.

          And if someone hates the US, I am sure that he or she is far more likely to wish violence upon the US than someone who doesn’t.

          I mean seriously, the previous post on this blog was titled “Occupation Causes Terror: Who Knew?”. We occupy several Muslim nations and support the dictatorship of several more.

          We cannot simultaneously acknowledge that “We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns” while acting as we shouldn’t be concerned with Islamic terrorist attacks.

          1. We should be concerned with all terrorist attacks, Islamic or otherwise.

            We should not be concerned with the presence of Muslims, even those who wear the clothes common in their own culture. We should only be concerned with the opinions of Muslims about our wars in Iraq and Afg because those wars were stupid to begin with for independent reasons. We should not give the Arab Street a veto over our foreign policy; only the Cold Hand of Reality.

            1. The hatred and violence that is stoked by our foreign aggression and occupation is not a part of the “Cold Hand of Reality”. The wars are wrong regardless of Arab opinions, but the way they influence Arab opinions is worthy of our consideration.

          2. Brad, it’s two different scales. Data on groups help you predict group phenomenon, while data on individuals help you predict individual phenomenon. If you want to know which flavor of ice cream will sell best in a city, then conduct a survey. If you want to know which flavor of ice cream your dinner companion wants, then just ask him directly.

        2. Shazad doesn’t seem to share your nit-pickiness. He didn’t say ‘some’ Muslims. None of the jihadis we catch say ‘some’ Muslims. The only people really going on about it being ‘some’ Muslims are people who seem unable to help themselves when it comes to apologia for Islam

          1. Obviously bombers and jihadis are going to say all Muslims agree with their tactics. They’re deluded fucks. Just like Eric Rudolph said that people in the pro-life movement supported bombing clinics deep down.

            1. And how several Liberals argued that Bush Jr only had the support of the extremists, even though he got over 40% of the vote.

          2. Shazad is obviously not a sane or reasonable person. Why would you believe what he says over the overwhelming evidence that most Muslims are not and do not want to be at war with the US?

            1. Ummm….because there is no ‘overwhelming evidence’ that your statement is true. Most of the Muslims prattling on about how Islam doesn’t want to be or isn’t at war with the US/west are folks who seem to expect their comments to blind us to their terrorist-abetting actions.

              If most of Islam was denouncing every attack–in much the way that most of Christendom repudiated Eric Rudolph and other clinic bombers we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

      2. I agree that we should not stick our heads in the sand. The way I read Williams comments, I think he implied that he feels that all Muslims are at war with him. Perhaps I misread his comments.

        1. I suppose you can tell the difference between “Muslim extremists” and Muslims in general?

          If not, then you would be at least be somewhat justified in whether that Muslim next to you is an extremist or not.

          1. The white person next to me on the plane, wearing a t-shirt and jeans, could very well be a swine flu carrier. Indeed, the probability of that is much higher than the probability of a random Muslim being a terrorist.

            Yet I’m not going to worry and pine over that possibility.

            1. Agreed, but the brain doesn’t quite work that way.

              We don’t board a plane looking for clues as to who might be a terrorist or who might be carrying a illness, we see characteristics and link them to fears.

              If you see someone sneezing on a plane, you probably will be concerned with getting ill. If you see a muslim on the plane, your brain will likely revert to thoughts about terrorism.

              1. Speak for your own brain, bigot. We have many innate modes of thought that were useful back when our existence depended on keeping the other tribe away from our water puddle, but are really out of place in modern life. Some of us have tried to outgrow those destructive thought patterns. It’s a pity that you and Juan haven’t.

                1. evolve faster, damn it!

              2. A agree that the initial concern is a perfectly natural emotion given the events of the past few decades, however I expect adults to be able to override this gut reaction with logic.

                1. You can’t override the emotion with logic until you feel it, and feeling it is an offense against Progressive God.

          2. I hold by the assumption of innocence until a person is proven guilty. Justice requires precision before acting, not rough estimates based on averages.

      3. General Muslim hatred of the US?

        You don’t get out enough.

        1. I only mean that, when it comes to hatred for the US, it is plain that Muslims have more reason to be hostile towards the US.

          1. Reason to be hostile /= hatred

          2. “Reasons to be Hostile”? How about because their religion demands it? I have trouble understanding why Liberals, always ignore that little fact. Perhaps their own general lack of belief in transcendental religion, blinds them to the fact that others take theirs quite seriously.

        2. Obviously, you’ve never been out to an Islamic country, even a modestly one. Read some polls sometimes about how a majority of British- and American-Muslims view Western society. Do all Muslims share that view? No, but if it’s even 1% that’s 15.7 million potential terrorists. If that were not so, Comedy Central wouldn’t censor a South Park episode. The Muslim world makes good use of good cop bad cop. I don’t consider that bigotry, unless hating the mafia is as well.

      4. Another point is that Mr. Williams did not say that the war was with Muslims, he quoted a Muslim who said this.

        Is it now a fireable offense to quote what others have said?

  15. Would it offend Matt Welch if a commentator said her pulse quickened when she saw Juan Williams in the airport parking garage — you know, because of the relatively high rate of violent crimes committed by people like him? Would Welch stick up for said commentator?

    1. Jesse Jackson spoke of being relieved that the footsteps behind him on a dark street were those of a white person.

      1. Not long ago, I left the side entrance of a dining establishment ran downtown by a friend to avoid a crowd. I was in a dark area at the time, and at full alert. I heard footsteps nearby turned to look and to my relief it was two black Muslims in suits taking a short cut through the same back alley ways that I was going through.

        Now that’s irony!

  16. A minor point, but forced moral equivalence demands precision.

    Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian, but a declared agnostic.

    1. Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian, but a declared agnostic.

      Don’t quibble.

    2. Technically McVeigh was a Catholic. He was also a declared agnostic, but he never formally left the Catholic Church, and I almost want to say he recieved last rites.

      A more pertinent point is he did not justify his actions by claiming that they were based on his religious views. There have been some people who claim to believe in Christ who have done such, but fortunantly over the last two decades none have killed anywhere near the people McVeigh killed.

  17. Good riddance. A respected news outfit like NPR shouldn’t host people who contribute to the GOP propaganda machine. I could do without Mara Liasson too.

    1. Respect yourself enough to not feed the sockpuppet, please.

      1. And Tony once again graces us with his sparkling presence and his one-side-only-is-fair-commentary worldview.

        1. There aren’t sides, there is truth and there is propaganda.

          NPR = news
          FOX = Republican propaganda

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          2. teh stoopit, it bernz

          3. Liberal commentary = truth
            Non-liberal commentary = Republican lies

            1. Liberals value facts, Republicans don’t. That’s why Republicans must insist that all factual news is an evil conspiracy against them.

              1. tiy ewlkkt lew l aryous suxjgwls

              2. That’s what you posted a lot of facts to make your case here, instead of ludicrously partisan assertions backed by naught but arrogance.

              3. Your world has an interesting bifurcation: “liberals” and “Republicans”.

                I like bifurcating along the lines of “controlling fucktard tribalists” and “people who prefer to live their own lives”. It’s pretty clear which side of that line you are on, Tony.

              4. Oh, irony…

                Tony at 11:08:
                NPR = news
                FOX = Republican propaganda

                Tony at 11:56
                Liberals value facts, Republicans don’t.

              5. One time I was listening to a program on NPR where they documented the liberal bias in the media. The spouse of the Republican candidate for governor in Michigan was falsely reported to have spoken ill of Delphi employees and this was all over the state in news reports, and virtually none admitted the whole report was a lie. Yet when the spouse of the Democrat governor really did speak ill of Delphi workers, it was not widely reported. That is the only example I remember, but the guy on NPR reported at least one other case.

      2. But sockpuppets need food too?

    2. Re: Tony,

      A respected news outfit like NPR shouldn’t host people who contribute to the GOP propaganda machine. I could do without Mara Liasson too.

      Nothing wrong with wanting purity of thought. Debate and logical discourse is so bourgoise after all . . . Right, Tony?

      1. If you’ve ever listened to NPR you’d know there is plenty of debate and logical discourse, unlike on FOX News.

        1. Re: Tony,

          If you’ve ever listened to NPR you’d know there is plenty of debate and logical discourse[…]

          Well, there was . . . until yesterday.

        2. Oh yes, I’ve heard it. “Are the Democrats struggling this election season because of (a) racism, (b) corporate-funded attack ads, or (c) the public’s ignorance of how many great things the Democrats have accomplished?”

        3. I listen to NPR a lot. I mean A LOT. I listen to Morning Edition every day of the week while getting dressed and eating breakfast and driving to work, and to All Things Considered and Marketplace every evening on my way home from work. I also listen to several shows on the weekend, which I really enjoy – Car Talk with Click and Clack, Prairie Home Companion, This American Life, Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, On The Media, The Treatment.

          I listen to their reporting, because it’s a convenient way to find out what’s going on in the world, which they actually do a good job of reporting – but I also know that if they’re going to talk about it or give “analysis,” it’s going to be left-leaning.

          I listen to the other stuff just because it’s entertaining and I like it – I usually have it on in the background while I’m working in the garage or my workshop or whatever.

          But even on what is supposedly a good, ol’-fashioned family entertainment radio show, Prairie Home Companion, Garrison Keiller never stops bashing all things Republican or conservative. That does get tiresome and I wish he wouldn’t stoop to that, because the show otherwise usually is entertaining.

          There can be no mistaking the leftward leaning of every person on NPR. They purport to be non-biased, but so do the bobbleheads at Fox. Each has their own preference and bias and is blind to it.

          You can pretend all you want that NPR is some vaunted arbiter of neutrality, fairness and even-handed reporting, but that is bullshit, pure and simple. I’ve been listening to NPR for about 15 years now, and there can be no doubt whatsoever, to anyone who is honest with themselves, that NPR leans hard to the left.

          Just as Fox leans hard to the right. No big secret in either of these “revelations.”

          I also listen a lot to our local Fox News affiliate AM talker station – Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.

          I know this when I listen to either of them, so I know what to expect and how to take their news and opinions.

          I see no reason to get worked up about these plain facts. Everyone knows NPR leans to the left and everyone knows Fox leans to the right. Big fucking deal.

          1. I agree that most of NPR’s talent is liberal, and that it plays to a more liberal audience. The important difference is that NPR’s news reporting is straight, while FOX’s is heavily biased, sold with the Orwellian motto “fair and balanced.” NPR may choose to pair a liberal with someone like David Brooks rather than some right-wing firebreather, but the idea that a Glenn Beck is a legitimate counterweight to a liberal like E.J. Dionne is just the narrative FOX News wants to perpetuate, shifting the center more and more to the right. FOX’s bread is buttered by its extremists commentators, and I don’t see any marxists getting regular play on NPR.

            1. One big fucking difference between NPR and Fox is that tax money directly subsidizes one of them.

            2. Considering how many people get their news from FNC and the talk radio equivalents, you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re “extremist”. You may disagree with them a lot, but they represent a huge swath of the US electorate.

              1. Surely some one who defended Ward Churchhill would be pissed to see Juan Williams get the boot, right Tony?

                In defense of Churchill

                If every scholar were subject to the same scrutiny Churchill was, there would be very few clean hands.

                Face it, Churchill was one of the only people willing to say America had it coming. Agree or disagree, this is why he was targeted.

                Whatever his faults as a scholar, in my humble opinion he is more right when he says that America has much to repent for–that we’ve been as much a force for evil as good in the world–than the hundreds of incredulous pundits who say they attacked us because they are jealous of our freedom.

                What? You are glad see Juan get the boot, you say? Hmmm. What would one call someone who would defend Churchhill but not Williams? An extremist, maybe?

                1. Tony just got pwned. Bravo.

                2. I said “good riddance” as in I had very little use for Juan Williams.

                  But actually I don’t think he should have been sacked. Not for a single ill-advised statement.

            3. I almost never see any cable news channel, but it is my understanding that for most of the day, FOX reports straight news, just like NPR, only with better looking and ditsier news readers.

              1. Yes – what the defenders of NPR who also criticize Fox always do is conflate the opinion talkers with news reporting. The “analysts” and opinion-givers on NPR – not just “most” of them, but every single one of them – are liberals. The “analysts” and opinion-givers on Fox are right-wingers.

                Both NPR and Fox report the news, however. And in doing so, they report the news. Period.

                Where they get annoying is where they start talking about the news and analyzing it. Or doing some sort of “investigative” type piece. Like the one NPR did several years back when the AWB was expiring. That is when I almost stopped listening to NPR altogether. The reporter made several really stupid, ignorant, snarky remarks that were completely and absolutely unnecessary to the report. It completely betrayed any pretense of neutral reporting he was otherwise purporting to maintain.

                1. Greta’s not a rightie, nor is Geraldo, and I see Alan Colmes from time to time

                2. “The “analysts” and opinion-givers on Fox are right-wingers.”

                  Actually you had a left winger at Fox – Juan Willams – remember him. The big difference between Fox and NPR is that Fox is willing to let lefties on – and not shout them down. How many right wingers on NPR? Why are you leftists so afraid of a contrary opinion?

                3. I think you need to look more deeply into the reporting done. There is an awful lot of false facts, biases and such evident in NPR reporting.

          2. WTF is entertaining about Garrison Keillor?

            I mean, seriously?

            He is the poster boy for why I tend to prefer my entertainment to be of the “for profit” variety. At least there’s SOME check and balance to that system, though it may operate slowly.

            Garrison Keillor has convinced me that we should cede Minnesota to Canada. If Canada should wisely refuse, we declare war on them, and force them to cede our territory!

            This would not only be unprecedented in military history, but also a hell of a lot funnier than PHC has ever been.

            1. Oops. Typing faster than thinking.

              We should force Canada to ANNEX our territory, or face a declaration of war. 🙂

    3. Good riddance […] NPR shouldn’t host people who contribute to the GOP propaganda machine.

      Dissidents and enemy agents shall be dealt with swiftly and summarily.

    4. We could do without you.

    5. So let me get this straight, Toni.

      You’re saying that the network that actually brings on liberals from NPR is actually not “fair and balanced” but that firing them from NPR for contributing to said “fair and balanced” network is itself an indicator of NPR’s objectivity.

      That’s richer than a double chocolate sunday with gold leaf sprinkles. Holy Shit.

      1. This has the air of an issue that will crystalize public opinion at exactly the wrong time for the (D) party – a government-subsidized industry exacting revenge on a somewhat sympathetic minority figure for expressing a common personal feeling – one shared by many, many people in the US. Personally, I feel a little twitchy when I’m around anyone who feels highly-motivated enough to wear a religious costume in public.

        1. Crystallize or Kristall-ize? You make the call!

          1. Agitprop does come in many forms.

    6. Tony must be running out material. He’s starting to seem like a spoof.

      1. Or is he always a spoof? Some of his claims are so false they are hard to believe.

        1. I should have said “believe that anyone really thinks them”.

  18. Terrorism and harassment by Muslims is designed to make us feel nervous every time we see a Muslim so that they can intimidate us into making concessions. That’s the fitness benefit that Muslim bigots receive when they discriminate against non-Muslims. It’s not surprising that Americas who faced decades of this hate have an emotional toll from it, but we must be strong enough to hold true to our principles even when it is emotionally difficult. Sometimes that day after I get harassed by Muslim bigots online, I feel a bit nervous when I see a traditionally dressed Muslim. I think to myself, “This is America. We judge people as individuals.” That thought makes the nervousness dissipate in a couple of seconds.

    1. I get annoyed by how many halal carts there are in NYC. It’s ritual animal sacrifice and cruelty, and I disapprove.

  19. “Is it now “anti-Muslim” to admit your anxiety when seeing an Orthodox-looking Muslim on Islamic terrorists’ most infamous weapon of mass murder?”

    I think it’s just that people are still so sick of Bush Era fear-mongering, that anything that smacks of it has become offensive.

    It’s like what McCarthyism did to hating on communists. It’s still hard to say what you think about communists, sometimes, without being associated with McCarthyism in people’s minds.

    The man doesn’t seem to recognize that being associated with the Bush Era is deeply offensive to some people.

    I’m not saying that’s the way it should be. I’m not saying it’s conscious or right; I’m just saying that’s the way it is.

    1. I think it’s just that people are still so sick of Bush Era fear-mongering, that anything that smacks of it has become offensive.

      What Bush Era fear-mongering of Muslims, as opposed to Bush Era fear-mongering in general without racial or religious profiling?

      The Bush Administration did as much as anyone to insist that Islam was a religion of peace, that people shouldn’t fear Muslims, that any sort of racial or religious profiling in security was inappropriate (and that security theater should be aimed at everyone, even the harmless looking in order to be fair), etc.

      1. And, you know, McCarthy wasn’t entirely off. There were Soviet spies in the government. And communism really was an insidious, atheist plot to try to take over the world.

        People were pretty disgusted by that kind of fear mongering, however, post McCarthy.

        And suggesting that the Bush Administration wasn’t engaged in fear-mongering is beyond credibility.

        The Bush Administration justified tapping our phones without warrants, extrajudicial rendition, denying legal council to American citizens, waterboarding and the Patriot Act–all with the justification that if we weren’t letting them do these things, then we weren’t sufficiently frightened.

        …not to mention justifying the invasion of Iraq based on everything from nonexistent “yellow-cake” to phony photos of nonexistent mobile WMD labs.

        I will say that there’s no doubt most of the fear mongering was done by the Bush Administration’s cheerleaders–but isn’t that the point?

        For those of you in the media who haven’t gotten the memo yet, nobody wants to hear about how we’re all supposed to be afraid of Muslims anymore.

        And it’s because the Bush Administration (and their cheerleaders) WAY overplayed their hand on the Muslim fearmongering.

        1. And suggesting that the Bush Administration wasn’t engaged in fear-mongering is beyond credibility.

          Sorry, I find you beyond credibility, especially since that’s not what I said. I said that the Bush Administration engaged in general fearmongering aimed at all citizens and non-citizens.

          Many people out there were outraged principally because the fearmongering and security theater was aimed at them as well instead of just at Muslims. I didn’t want racial and religious profiling, but the Bush Administration went to enormous efforts to avoid it and instead just infringe everyone’s civil rights equally.

          1. Should I nit-pick too and say I was talking about the “Bush Era” originally?

            The Bush Administration didn’t specifically say that Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11 or the anthrax attack either…

            Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

            Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
            WASHINGTON (AP) ? Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.

            Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.

            The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

            President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

            http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..iraq_x.htm

            That’s from months after we invaded Iraq.

            The Bush Administration didn’t need to spell out M-U-S-L-I-M specifically. It wasn’t necessary. Everyone knew they were talking about Muslim terrorism.

            And history will always remember the years from 2001 – 2009 as a period of Islamophobia in American history, just like they remember the McCarthy Era as part of the Red Scare.

            And whether the Bush Administration couched their fear mongering in specifically Muslim terms is completely beside the point. Everyone understood the fear of terrorism to mean Muslim terrorism.

            The complaints about the civil rights of Americans being caught up by Bush’s War on Terror were a concern expressed exclusively by civil libertarians of the Bush Era, and their complaints were largely ignored or ridiculed by the Bush Administration and their cheerleaders.

            1. The Bush Administration didn’t specifically say that Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11 or the anthrax attack either…

              And they never came close to even implying any such thing. The whole Iraq/Hussein thing was about 1) the potential of a Middle East dictator with access to billions of dollars of oil money to develop nuclear weapons (based on crappy intel), and 2) a naive faith in the power of a democratic political system to stabilize the region and the U.S. ability to bring it about in a nation that’s never known it. It was a long-term strategic move to reshape the political landscape in the area. Iraq was also a convenient target for this purpose. And no I’m not saying it was a good idea.

              1. I was there. I remember what the Bush Adminsitration said and did…

                But let’s play it your way. How do you explain why the Post got those poll results almost six months AFTER we invaded Iraq then?

                How did so many Americans get the idea Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and, specifically, the anthrax attack?

                How’d they all dream the same dream?

    2. I’m not saying that I necessarily disagree with the color-blind approach, but your “Bush Era” assertion is as far from reality as it gets.

      The Bush Era mentality, for good or ill, was that we are all potential terrorists.

      1. From “islamo-fascist” to the pure mockery “religion of peace”, the Bush Era will always be remembered for Islamophobia.

        Just like the Red Scare.

        1. It may be remembered that way, but for nothing that has to do with the facts, simply due to unreasoning people like you. I accept that there are no facts which would possibly change your already made up mind, and that many historians are just as filled with bigotry as you are.

          Even outside the Administration, anti-Muslim hate crimes did not rise to levels of anti-gay or anti-Jewish hate crimes in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

          1. Some Muslims claim there are more Muslims than Jews in the US. So what does the much higher level of anti-Jewish hate crimes tell us?

            I do not know. For one thing it may tell us that the ADL’s longstanding taking exception at any talk that does not portray Jews as the greatest people alive has effect.

            It may also be that Jews are much more willing to report percieved biases because they feel the system will help them.

            On the other hand, Jews fear to wear Yamulkas in public at UC Irvine, but at least my observations at Eastern Michigan University and the greater Ypsilanti-Ann Arbor area make it hard to believe any Muslim women feel they will be attacked in public if they wear hijab.

        2. Although I’d give it a 50% chance that the Bush Administration will be remembered for the strenuous efforts it took to avoid racial profiling– whenever this can be used as a hook for a “why are the current Republicans so much worse?” article. As has already started happening.

    3. Yeah, I remember when Joe McCarthy called communism a “political ideology of peace.”

    4. Ken,
      Bush is the one who said Islam was “the religion of peace”.
      however, I would say the current problems are because we no longer have Bush at the helm. Bush pushed for tolerance and understanding while facing the real problems.

      The current president seems unwilling to even allow a discussion of the issues that lead to the Fort Hood massacre. Do we really want Muslims who feel more commonality with suicide bombers in Iraq than with their fellow soldeirs in the military?

      Let me be 100% clear. I DO NOT think we should ban Muslims from the US military. However I do think we should take the issue of possible divided loyalty seriously, and screen for people who will be a high threat of desertion, back-stabing or going on a killing spree.

  20. In some ways, the domestic battle against Muslim haters is an offshoot of the War on Drug Users. From what I’ve read, extreme views are less common among American Muslims from families who immigrated Middle Eastern and were Muslims for centuries than it is among American Muslims who converted to Islam while they were serving time for drug crimes. This makes sense. An American Muslim raised in an established Muslim family has access to the long tradition of Islam and can draw from Islamic sources that support democracy and tolerance. This allows those bi-cultural individuals to reconcile American values and Islamic values. On the other hand, an American non-Muslim who is arrested for nonviolent drug offenses is torn from his career, friends, and family; severely punished at the start of the experience; and then locked up for an extended time. That treatment is similar to the initial phase of brainwashing. There are peaceful and tolerant Muslims reaching out to convicts, just as there are missionaries from other religions. However, there are less tolerant Muslim Churches that actively recruit in American prisons.

    When you also consider that the War on Drug Users killed an estimated 20,000 Americans between 2000 and 2010 while Muslim terrorists killed about 8,500 Americans in that decade, it’s irrational to worry more about the War against Muslim Terrorism than about the War on Drug Users. It’s time to end the War on Drug Users.

    1. Well, there’s also the well-known issue of the extra fervor of new converts to any religion.

    2. However, the 9-11 hijackers, the Time Square Bomber, the Fort Hood Massacreer and the under-pants bomber are none of them converts to Islam. None of them ever served time in US jails for drug crimes.

      The Imam killed in a shoot-out with police in Detroit may more fully fit your profile, and maybe the dirty bomber.

      Then there are the “honor” killings, a phenomenon which needs to be addressed but no one does.

  21. Why do we have National Public Radio and no National Public Newspaper?

    1. Because The Washington Post and The New York Times stubbornly refuse to merge into the The Newash Yorkington Postimes.

      1. Sounds like one hell of a fire starter to me.

    2. Because the broadcast spectrum supposedly belongs to everyone since it’s ubiquitous and free.

      And neither paper nor ink nor the distribution of newspapers is free.

      I’m not saying that’s the way it should be. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying that’s the way it is.

      1. However broadcasting costs money. It takes resources to put radio waves out.

    3. ahem…we’re close enough for government work, don’t you think?

    4. Because Newspapers existed before Congress and were able to fight for the freedom of the printed press in our formative years. Hamilton won many important battles for freedom of the press during his career in news.

      Radios emerged during a time of rising socialism. Radio stations were not established enough to fight the creation of NPR until it was too late.

      On a related note, most of the American colonial colleges (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, ect.) started as Christian seminaries. They sent representatives to the Congress when the Constitution was written to lobby for that clause which lets Congress fund the arts and sciences. To receive those funds, they ditched their official belief in G-d when the separation between Church and State started. This explains much about today’s academia.

      1. Radio stations were not well established in 1967? That’s news to me. I think that it was more likely that they didn’t care as they were doing just fine and continued to do just fine after NPR came on.

        1. Good point, Zeb. There goes my theory.

    5. No, seriously guys?

      It’s the free spectrum.

      Seriously.

      Free Spectrum.

      That’s the right answer.

      1. If its so free, why does the FCC hold auctions?

        1. “I’m not saying that’s the way it should be. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying that’s the way it is.”

          —-Ken Shultz|10.21.10 @ 11:22AM|#

          https://reason.com/blog/2010/10/21/juan-gone#comment_1961457

  22. The real qustion is, how do the listeners of “Car Talk” feel about this? They are the ones that really pay the bills over there.

    1. See my long, long post above.

  23. If only he had wished Rush Limbaugh dead he’d still have a job this morning.

  24. It seems pretty clear that Juan Williams was not proud of these thoughts, simply saying that it was difficult to avoid having them.

    I do find it strange that some liberals will say that we’re all bigoted and that it’s difficult to avoid having racist and bigoted thoughts. But apparently admitting to those stray thoughts that you’re not proud of is a firing offense.

    If the argument is that we all have those thoughts, then apparently the only firing offense is honesty.

    Jesse Jackson once publicly admitted that one of his greatest shames (in a variety of ways) was walking down the street, hearing teenagers or young men behind him, and then being somewhat relieved when they were white.

    1. See? Jesse Jackson no longer works for NPR either.

    2. How can we make people think a certain way if we can’t punish them?

      The true NPR subtext – “We’re really from the government, and we’re really here to make you think the right way, you sheeplike hippies!”

      1. A few minutes of listening to NPR makes this clear to anyone with the intuitive abilities of a pile of dogshit.

  25. No Muslims scare me, not even if a radical with a bomb was standing next to me. However, like Juan Williams I’m not a dummy to facts and the fact is there are Islamic jihadists out there who would love to blow us to kingdom come.

    The worse people in the world, people like the Bob Wrights and Glenn Greenwalds of the world, are those who can’t even admit that much… that as much as the Southern Poverty Law Center is afraid of white people, there’s some really scary violent brown people out there too.

    Oh no!!!

    1. The SPLC is also afraid of Brown Christians who support things like defending the right to life of unborn children.

      They also think people are hate filled bigots if they call on people who have committed homosexual acts to apply the atonement of Jesus Christ to be forgiven of their sins.

  26. But, we still have Mee-shell Norris, right?

    NPR just wouldn’t be the same without her pseudo-intellectual haughtiness.

    1. You think she’s bad? You ever listen to “On the Media” with Bob Garfield and Brooke Gladstone?

      They’re high up there on the worst offender list in terms of pretending to be impartial media analysts, but they clearly are left-leaning.

      I’ll have to dig up a link to the broadcast Bob Garfield did shortly after GWB left office. He did this bit about saying “THANK you” to GWB, but made it clear that what he really was saying was “Fuck you” to the former President. Seriously.

      1. I grant that everything you say is true, but On The Media is one of my favorite NPR shows. THey do do some interesting analysis of the media and Garfield really makes no attempt to hide his biases, which is really the best one can hope for.

  27. But I have felt that heightened sense of anxiety in the past

    But you got over it, Matt, like anyone with a brain and bladder control.

    In 2010, if you’re an American fearful or angry at seeing someone you think is be Muslim on your plane or bus or subway car, grow the fuck up and deal with that bigotry of yours.

    And, you know, accept that outlets like NPR don’t like employing people who openly spout religious or racial bigotries instead of acting like it’s some big mystery.

    1. People feel anxiety about Islamic terrorism because Islamic terrorism exists. It’s not some fictional problem that only dumb people worry about.

      Everyone hates stereotypes but if they had absolutely no basis in fact, they’d go away immediately. Try starting a stereotype that has absolutely no basis in fact and see if it catches on.

      1. “People” don’t feel this anxiety when encountering a random person of a huge group in which some tiny fraction post a thread. Stupid people do.

        By your terrible logic, I should be scared absolutely shitless of getting on a plane full of Americans, because American warmongering, secret detention, and torture exist.

        Or, as I’m an American too, getting on a plane with men, who commit the vast majority of violent crimes. Or OK, I’m one of those, so white-lookin guys from the South, as there are all those stereotypes about (and examples of) their violent racism. Or wait, I’m one of those, so…

        That’s just stupidity all the way down, Zeke.

        1. Rather, “some tiny fraction pose a threat”.

        2. So you’d also argue that black men should not be nervous around the sight of cops, because as we all know, it’s only a few bad apples that do anything wrong?

          I’m a white Southerner, and I can’t blame women, or blacks, or anyone else that you mentioned for having at least some thoughts along the lines you mentioned.

          It’s ridiculous and untrue to say that only stupid people form stereotypes. We shouldn’t be proud of them, and we should constantly be testing them and watching out for thoughts, but it’s impossible to avoid having them. It’s an inevitable point of accepting inductive reasoning.

          Only people who fail to think at all fail to form stereotypes.

          Luckily, people are far better at evaluating and correcting stereotypes than is often feared.

          1. Do you really want to compare the number of Americans harmed by Muslim terrorists to the number of Americans, black or otherwise, harmed by cops?

            The stupidity is being paranoid about Muslim terrorists, when the simple fact is that an American is more likely to be die from a “bad apple” cop’s bullet than from the act of a Muslim terrorist.

            1. I tend to be very cautious around cops, and only somewhat uncomfortable around fundamentalist nut jobs whose religion involves a costume. That would be including, but not remotely limited to, anyone wearing Muslim garb.

            2. In 2009, there were 289 people killed by tasers. How fucking dumb are you?

            3. Why are we limiting it to Americans?

              Anyway, thousands of Americans have been harmed by Muslim terrorists. Do you not know of the Lebanon bombings, or the IEDs all the time in Iraq.

              What about Pakistan where it is a criminal offense for those who have rejected Jihad of the sword to wish peace to another individual?

        3. “By your terrible logic, I should be scared absolutely shitless of getting on a plane full of Americans, because American warmongering, secret detention, and torture exist.”

          American “warmongering, secret detention, and torture exist” on airplanes? Er, yeah, great example of what I’m talking about there.

          Look, it’s really simple. Islamic terrorism exists. Islamic terrorists target airplanes. So people are apprehensive about it when they fly.

          You aren’t smart or adult or special for pretending that you aren’t concerned about it at all. And I’m not saying people “should be scared shitless.” I’m saying it’s understandable if they feel anxiety about it.

          1. Sorry, Zeke, it’s not clever or slick to try to cajole me into justifying your anxieties. They’re dumb, and they’re not understandable.

            1. Ah, so people who are anxious about a possible scenario are “stupid”? Interesting stereotype you have there.

              1. Unless they’re black and afraid some trigger happy cop might profile them. That is totally reasonable and sane.

        4. I find it pretty offensive that you suggest that only stupid people form stereotypes. Every one does.

          It’s our reactions to those stereotypes that are important, and Juan was pretty clearly embarrassed by them.

          1. I find it pretty lame that you’re defensively misreading what I actually wrote.

            Try looking again at what I actually said was stupid.

          2. Also, no. Juan was posturing that he was embarrassed by his stereotypes – while in an environment where he’d only be congratulated for those fears and while reaching for justifications for them.

            1. Posturing? You have very finely tuned hypocrit-dar, pal. Juan has a captive market for his opinions at Fox, and is actually an honest commentator (at least in the few times I saw him on the Brit Hume Fox news thing).

              NPR has completely, utterly screwed the pooch on behalf of their masters with this dumbass move. The last think anybody with a (D) next to their name needed was for the one media outlet in the country that is indisputably a mouthpeice for leftist Goodthink to take revenge on a minority opinion-journalist for Badthink! What a potential zeitgeist bonanza for the (R) tribe!

              1. I wish African_Americans would wise up and see they are being manipulated and used by the Democrat party. I can only hope there will be more people who win elections in like ways as Rep. Gao in the next congress.

            2. No, you can reasonably worry that a stingy airline hasn’t updated planes or any number of ways you might not make it alive to your destination. These days that includes Muslims armed with boxcutters who want 72 lapdances at that big titty bar in the sky sooner rather than later.

    2. In 2010, if you’re an American fearful or angry at seeing someone you think is be Muslim on your plane or bus or subway car, grow the fuck up and deal with that bigotry of yours.

      Hey, immature bigot, project much?

  28. Let’s cut to the chase: Williams was fired for what he said because he said it on Fox news. Period. Fox and all of its people are being targeted by the left, and I can guarantee you that NPR was called by Media Matters, TPM, Think Progress as well as CAIR, after Williams spoke on O’Reilly. They want to silence voices on Fox, and they just silenced one that had his feet in both camps – a moderate who straddled the divide between liberal NPR and conservative Fox.

  29. And then they came for Juan Williams. Jesse? Al? NAACP? ACLU?

    Didn’t think so. He should have called them whores instead of terrorists, then at least NOW woulda had his back.

  30. Yet NPR did NOT take any action against Mark “How To Speak Teabag” Fiore. So I guess his vulgar, hateful “cartoon” DID fall within NPR’s editorial blah blah blahs.

  31. “credibility as a news analyst with NPR”

    No sentence containing that phrase can make sense.

  32. If I had to guess, I’d say that NPR has been looking for a reason to terminate Juan for several years; ever since he became a fixture on Fox News expressing opinions that were hardly always politically correct in the world that most NPR executives and journalists live in. It’s also likely that NPR wants to send a message to the rest of their staff that fraternizing with the enemy won’t be tolerated.

    1. Follow the money, that is Soros.

  33. Whatever the outcome I ferociously believe that should NPR stop getting my tax money and compete like everyone else in the marketplace.

  34. Juan Williams always came across as someone who was reasonable and I listened to his opinions only because of my deep respect for him. It was always apparent that he was a sincere, honest and decent person. Juan built bridges of understanding between two ideological points of view.

    I hate that he will now be dismissed by the left for 1) conveying his feelings and 2) for appearing on Fox. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all terrorists are Muslims…but we are still at war with terrorists who succeeded in creating fear for anyone who ever boards an airplane–regardless of who’s on it.

    I was once T-boned and almost killed by a red van. When I drive, I still keep my eye on the red vans. Maybe one day my heart won’t beat just a little faster when I see one.

  35. The issue here is that Juan would have NEVER said such a thing on NPR. He was clearly couching what he said for the audience that was listening to him. Fine for a politician, great for a President, but not so much for a journalist.

    1. Oh, the cognitive dissonance burns. Never would have said it on NPR because . . .? Come on, you can figure it out. He can be more frank in his assessments on Fox because . . .?

      Okay, rest up a bit, I know that must have been a hard workout for your brain.

      1. You seem to be actually verifying the point that my poor, tired brain eeked out. (It was a long night studying for my yes vote on AZ Prop 203 to legalize medical marijuana as a potential cure for the stupid like me).

        As you say, it appears that he felt much more comfortable saying, “I’m afraid of people that don’t look like me” on a station full of commentators that are afraid of people that don’t look like them and watched by millions of people that are afraid of people that don’t look like them.

        1. I see. It is only couching when he does it he is talking to the rubes not when talking to the rubes on Fox. Yeah. Never seen that slice of vanity before.

        2. Damn it! I hit submit while editing that middle sentence.

          I see. It is only couching when he does it when he is talking to the rubes on Fox not when talking to their betters on NPR. Yeah. Never seen that slice of vanity before.

          1. Why are you so itchin’ for a fight? You seem to not be able to agree with someone without kicking them in the balls first. There is no question that he couches in both directions. In this particular case, he said what he thought the FNC-ers wanted to hear. I’m sure he says what he thinks the NPR-ers want to hear.

            1. You’re the one who implied FOX viewers are bigots, as opposed to NPR where all thoughts are approved and sanitized.

        3. (It was a long night studying for my yes vote on AZ Prop 203 to legalize medical marijuana as a potential cure for the stupid like me).

          BTW, you are doing the Good Lord’s work there, sorry I gave your brain a hard time. He is probably not a bad kid for the most part.

          1. Wait, did I miss something? I thought it was NPR listeners (not Reason commenters – no, certainly not them) that are condescending assholes.

            1. Whenever did I claim not to be an asshole? Find the citation, and I will gladly correct the record.

              Why are you so itchin’ for a fight?

              Your initial statement was incorrect and needed to be addressed. I addressed the part of the matter that interest me, but left the more glaring fallacy alone because it didn’t interest me as much, and you would likely see it too without having to be brow beat about it. Hardly, a fight, I was being nice for a change.

            2. Being a condescending asshole cuts right across all political and ideological boundaries. It is the one thing all humanity can come together on.

    2. True, he has to maintain a facade of robot-like neutrality on NPR, otherwise they might have to deal with the fact that they have emotions, opinions, and prejudices and that learning how to change your voice into a mellow, soporific drone doesn’t make them go away.

  36. “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery?then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” ~ Rev. Jesse Jackson

    Racist bastard….

  37. What the heck is the point of having commenters on a bubble attractor like NPR if they’re just going to say what a bulk of the stereotypical NPR listener is going to say?

    Oops did I step on the answer and squish it like a bug?

  38. What about Mara Lyason. Does she have to quit, too?

  39. You NPR search seems to work with racist too…

    http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=“Tea+Party”+racist&tabId=all&dateId=0&programId=0&topicId=0

  40. You NPR search seems to work with racist too…

    http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=“Tea+Party”+racist&tabId=all&dateId=0&programId=0&topicId=0

  41. To read the Ombudsman’s weekly column, please visit: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/

    Ombudsman Contact Information:

    For E-mail, please use the “Contact Us” form at http://help.npr.org/npr/includ…..actus.aspx
    Phone: (202) 513-3245 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 513-3245

  42. Let’s face, Juan was gettin’ uppity, and NPR managment can’t be havin’ that.

    1. They needed to “keep the black man in his place”. That is my assesment of their goals. They also seem to hate black men, such as Justice Thomas, who had the audacity to marry white women.

      You see I like Justice Thomas, and have many other heros who are black men with white wives, or in the case of Mayor Love of Saratoga Springs, Utah, black women with white husbands (assuming the daughter of Haitian immigrants is really black, but she is clearly more black than Obama).

      I am still hoping Justice Thomas or another such wise man will tell off Obama by saying “Just because your ancestors held my ancestors as slaves, does not mean I have to bow to your will now”.

  43. Maybe everone should just ‘shut up’. Nobody should ever express an opinion about anything. Then we won’t have any need for NPR’s ‘word police’.

  44. It is time to take the P out of NPR.

    1. Call it National Plantation Radio,Uncle Juan weren’t singin the approved negro songs he supposed to be singin.

  45. isn’t think sort of the opposite of what happened with that black woman from the Department of Agriculture earlier this year?

    Some quotes she made were taken totally out of context and made to make her seem like a racist and she was summarily fired by some oversensitive execs.

    1. The context was made perfectly clear. She admitted having discriminated against whites at her government job before her come to Jesus epiphany.

    2. Or is it the same, making a man an offender for a word.

  46. ?I see zero reason to ever feel anxiety if a 100-year-old woman in traditional Islamic headdress is sitting next to me on a plane

    >>> Really? That’s how they do it against Israel. Old women, rigged baby strollers, suicide vests on developmentally disabled kids.

    1. Notice how the men who preach how wonderful being a suicide bomber is never actually due the bombing themselves.

  47. Mr Williams is simply a black man who didn’t tow the line 100% with his WHITE LIBERAL ELITE employers! If you are a White Woman (Nina Totenberg) you are allowed to wish AIDS on Jessee Helms and his Grandchildren, but a black man isn’t allowed to lose the leash for 10 seconds to express a personal feeling that has been or is shared by at least 90% of Americans! This is racism, pure and simple, a la the Elite Left!!!

  48. This presents a very good reason to not listen to NPR, to not pay any attention to anything you hear they have said and to not support National Propaganda Radio.

    1. We need to defund National Plantation Radio. Maybe Uncle Jesse’s firing can do as much good for the Republicans in 2010 as Uncle Tom’s Cabin did in 1856.

  49. Listen to NPR. Williams was not fired for what he said but rather where he said it. Had he the good grace to say the obvious on MSNBC, NPR or any liberal rag, he would still have a job, but on O’Reilly? Never!
    Why are taxpayers forced to support a gevernment radio network? If liberals want a toy run by bigoted liberal idealogues, that is public radio, then let them pay for it.

  50. In this day and age, people who do not look around them with a wary eye frequently become victims. I watch for people between cars in dark parking lots and I don’t stop to ask their ethnicity. I watch for crowds of young people surging with violence at athletic events. I watch for pickpockets at parades and outdoor concerts. That is a part of the world we live in. While I teach many young women who dress traditionally and I am not wary or afraid of them, I have to say that when I see a crowd of traditionally dressed Muslim men who seem to be acting strangely, I wonder at their intent. Given the events leading to 9/11’s horrific ending and the subsequent bombings in Spain and London, not to mention a litany of atrocities in the name of Allah, I think anyone who travels internationally or who flies into larger international airports owes it to themselves, their fellow passengers and their families to be alert and wary. I am sorry if this offends Muslims, but I am pretty darned tired of having to take off my shoes and throw out shampoo every time I take a flight because some nutjob in Waziristan or Iran wants to play bully. If Muslims want to change things the ball is in their court.

    1. I fly nearly every week and you bet I look around. Not because I’m a bigot, but because of 9/11. Not all Muslim are Terrorists But; All Terrorists are Muslim.

  51. Am against any tax money supporting NPR. The government shouldn’t be in the news business. Also NPR has always been slanted Left. Who cares whether he is or isn’t a biggot? I look forward to the day when PC is relegated to just the Non-public universities and for-profit media outlets– supposing of course that PC could survive at all without stolen taxpayer funds.

  52. Look 98 percent of Americans getting on a plane with a GROUP of Muslims on the plane… WOULD have second thoughts.

    It is not bigotry… it is just the fact White Americans are target throughout the world from the radical Muslims.

    Not that I would not fly… but I would definitely make a comment to the crew.

    As a matter of fact… I am going to get a license to carry here in Ohio. And I will make sure all rounds are tipped in pork.

    Trick learned in Military History. Black Jack Pershing made good use of that tactic… and all spys and enemies of his troops were buried in pig skins.

    Seems like that should be a military tactic for ALL TERRORISTS.

    Bigot NO.. just pissed that all the bleeding heart liberals and OBAMA are supporting anything MUSLIMS against all Americans.

  53. Juan Williams’ comments were ridiculously uninformed for a pro journalist – for that reason alone, his skills in observation and critical thought should be questioned. His remarks sound just as muddled as the guy who listens to nothing but O’Reilly. Quick points: 1] What kind of terrorist does he think would wear a blatant Scary-Muslim costume on a plane, just to shake up poor Juan, before triggering the bomb? HELLO! It’s going to be the one he DOESN’T notice! Duh! Use common sense! 2] JW should have known that a lot of the Next-Gen bombers will be of the very purest Aryan stock, and as Lily-White as the guy in the next cubicle, or as McVeigh. But he is way behind the curve and thinks in cliches.

    1. He was talking about his feelings. How can one be “ridiculously uninformed” about one’s own feelings?

  54. NPR will be defunded. It’s time. I listen to NPR a lot, but they are a partisan organization and should have to compete in the market.

    Only non partisan organizations qualify to be funded by the US taxpayer.

    Goodby, NPR.

  55. Juan was not offering ‘an opinion’ , he simply expressed his own personal feelings. HOW did we become so PC that your own ‘feelings’ are improper ? CAIR complained to NPR, THAT’S why he was fired. And after 10 years, to refuse to meet with him face to face, and fire him over the phone was disgraceful. I also heard last night that Media Matters is calling on NPR to fire Mara Liasson — for what ?? Because she appears on Fox ? I guess Soros’s recent donation to NPR came with lots of strings ! Soros also gave big $$ to the Huffington Post — he’s buying the Media so he can control them. Plain and simple.

  56. Juan won.

  57. The fact that Juan has concerns shows just how effective terrorism is.

  58. It’s interesting that so many of the people who agree with William’s firing seem not to have heard the full comment. The portion about not allowing those feelings to equate to a belief that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s as if he said something about Muslims and at that point they turned their minds off.

    1. Actually, I suspect they have only heard statements on what he said. Most of the time the hateful attackers do not bother to figure out what was actually said, they just parot second hand someone else’s attacks.

  59. Junior Bridesmaid Dresses Bridesmaid not only can be act by an adult, some junior

    href=”http://www.buybridesmaiddress.com”>bridesmaid dress has been the rage.

  60. wonderfully, it’s a great article~~~67sd8gh

  61. this article give me so much things, i like this~~SCFCHU64

  62. sth is happening RGEY343DS

  63. all words of the above are geart RGEY343DS

  64. you can look here SF5lj4FDK

  65. where is the heanvy SF5lj4FDK

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.