Because it is 'more' likely that sitting next to those people will actually impact the quality of my flight compared to sitting next to a woman in a burka.

michael moore's article from the huffington post.

Michael Moore: Juan Williams Is Right: Political Correctness About Terrorists Must End!

i think it speaks for itself.

Were you responding to me here?

I hardly think it's a phenomenon limited to one particular ideology, nor does my post indicate such a view. I'm not the kind of poster to note the darker parts of human nature and then attribute them to some mythical <insert ideology here>land in that snide way that discourages anything like productive discourse and encourages petty partisan mudslinging. That sounds like someone else.

how interesting, fta.

if you think there's a dialogue to be had, initiate one.

but there's nothing mythical about the existence of populist conservatism. it's a discourse. it has consistent signifiers and logics. it's pretty well-known and is easy to find. you could find it. anyone can.
and if you looked at that discourse, you'd know that more often than not, when an issue is processed through it that processing operates in a cookie-cutter way.

that obviously doesn't account for all the ways in which people use the discourse. i would hope no-one is exactly point-for-point an intellectual reproduction of it.


but i see no problem with analyzing and manipulating conservative discourse here because the way the statements about the world work, and the ways the logic they enact works, shapes how they're used.

i've never claimed to be doing anything different.

btw passive-aggressive isn't very conducive to dialogue either. fyi.

excellent, roachboy. thanks for posting that. (the Moore letter)

Now that everything has stewed a bit, I'm starting to think that Juan Williams knew exactly what he was doing. He upped his media value and Fox News obtained a martyr done wrong by his liberal benefactors. How very sexy, as they say in journalism today.

it's starting to look that way, isn't it?

i wonder if fox is now paying him more than they would have had he simply resigned fro npr in order to splash about there.

and npr's issued a mea culpa on process grounds.

NPR CEO apologizes for handling of Williams firing - On Media - POLITICO.com

the decision is based on professional misconduct and the premise for that outlined in the paragraph in bold. it appears that the usual process leading to the firing was followed even if the handling of the firing itself was maybe a problem (i didn't know about the phonecall. but my personal interest in this lay elsewhere, in the mis-statement of the situation by the conservative punditocracy and how that played out.)

appearing on o-reilly and hannity and being baited into playing the rhetorical game (to put it charitably with respect to williams) is a problem because those shows are infotainment, not journalism. they are editorials with a shabby footnote apparatus. i'm glad that the distinction between types of side-show at fox gets made.

but i wonder the extent to which fox's response is about protection of its business model. because the williams firing raises problems for it at the level of revealing how fox news is perceived beyond the limits of itself, beyond its own self-framing. it's one thing to have people in a disempowered public scoff at fox---it's quite another for a broadcast outlet to effectively argue that fox has programming that violates professional standards for journalism (even as that should be obvious.) so maybe the tempest in a teapot from the right was also a defense of the television outlet that is at this point the most important mobilizing tool they have.

From the Moore letter, agree or disagree with the war but why ignore this?

If this is "Bush's war" it seems to me if they wanted us to leave their land in peace, a first course of action would be to support the majority of Americans who want to bring our troops home and give Obama a chance. There is no need to target an kill innocent people in the name of peace.

And, you want to pretend that terrorism is not a concern that people should actually talk about???

I am curious because I see this as a cultural issue - is this the way some of you live your lives? Do you pretend problems are not real? And by not talking about them do you think the problems disappear? Williams is an adult, and he will be fine, and NPR can fire who they want for whatever reason from my point of view - but the real issue is the pretense about all of this - another one of those I don't get it moments involving liberals.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Here is an interesting editorial, in today's IBD:

George Soros' War Against Fox News - Investors.com

Ah, yes. The clearly objective IBD has all the answers (at least the ones that fit their narrative). They don't seem to mention Harlem Children's Zone. Soros does make a covenient bogeyman to help rally the troops around the persecuted entity that is Fox News.

*edit*

What could have possibly convinced you that that IBD editorial by itself was a meaningful response to anything I've written in this thread?

You could easily make the same arguments in reserves by simply replacing the name Soros with Koch or Mellon.

Yay George Soros ! :)

ace, dear, the rationale for firing williams was pretty clearly articulated in the letter i posted above you.

appearing on o-reilly and hannity amounted to a violation of npr's code of conduct for reporters. he had been warned about it repeatedly. it just turned out that this time he said something of such a high and focused level of boneheadedness that they felt compelled to act.

you've got no defense of the content of what williams said. in the letter, npr says it was enough that it was controversial. because it was stupid and bigoted. you may live in a "different culture" in which being a bigot isn't controversial. i suppose there's always been such pockets out there. i mean, any racist is normal in **some** context.
that there are such contexts that normalize different forms of bigotry doesn't mean that being a bigot is ok. but it appears that's what you're arguing.

before you were defending williams "right" to say stupid things.
now you try to defend william's stupid things implying that he's a bigot.

and the soros piece from idb is really funny. a series of articles in the legit press appear tracking down the funding networks behind the tea party that show it's largely the same old same old and not some "renegade" astroturf movement and the following monday idb edito is rehearsing stuff we all already know as if it justifies what the right is doing. same as it ever was.

Sorry, I don't post the items from the IBD editorial pages that I don't agree with. There is no doubt that IBD is a business paper with a business and conservative bias (wow, imagine actually understanding that and being willing to say it), but they present liberal view points every day on their editorial page.

Here is the long and short on billionaires, all of them. If concern for the human condition was their number one priority or even a higher priority than making money, they would not be billionaires. You can put Soros on a pedestal if you want, I'll just keep alert to what he is doing and how he may be trying to exploit the system. It is a dog eat dog world.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

I do. I trust my mother and my wife. And my trust of my wife is like a blind faith thing based on a foolish thing called love (sorry that may be the lyrics of a song, but true).:paranoid:

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

Perhaps it boils down to a question of consistency.

If NPR holds everyone to the same objective standard, good. I just want honesty. Say you fired him because he appears on Fox News if that is the case, don't fabricate a reason and expect thinking people to buy it without question.

If liberals are fit to be tied by big money going into conservative causes because they fear it buys influence and will "destroy democracy" or whatever (which has never been proven) then be consistent about it when looking at money flow going to liberal causes.

If you claim IBD has a bias, be willing to acknowledge a NY Times bias.

If you call a conservative a racist for what may be irrational fears, say the same about a liberal with what may be irrational fears.

If you want to make fun of O'Donnel, make fun of Alvin Greene running for Senate in SC.

The list can go on and on, but I am sure you get the point (but won't acknowledge it, my oh my the thought of trying to be objective).

And? It's an editorial, hence the loaded language and poorly elucidated facts. It doesn't mean much more than a mouse fart in the night.

Who has put Soros on a pedestal? I don't know anything about the man, my default assumption about his is that he's an asshole. If you really want to "keep alert to what he is doing" (sounds like an obsession to me ;) ) I suggest you avoid opinion pieces from folks predisposed to talk shit about him.

What I do know is that you and otto (and a whole collection of the usual right wing opinion-makers) are fond of making fairly illogical, unsubstantiated claims about who he is and the things that motivate him. If I were more like you or otto, I'd make some sort of foolish connection between your obsessions with Soros and some sort of deep seated fear of his power. But that would be dumb, so I won't do it.

I will reiterate that talking about ol' moneybags mcliberal does seem to be a convenient way of reinforcing the laughable notion that the conservative perspective is currently under credible attack, and is therefore a useful strategy for rallying the thoughtless. So, in other words, you're being chumped out.

And that is why no one ever addresses the points in an editorial they disagree with...why even read it? I wrote that it was from IBD's editorial pages. Each time, we get the same ad-hominim response. The response lacks credibility.

I read a lot of stuff, there was a reason why I shared this with TFP,

I stated that I don't know his intent, and I made that clear a couple of times.

Yet, do you buy into the NPR stated reason for firing Williams or do you agree the reason stated was B.S.?

Heck, even the CEO saying Williams veered away for news analysis and gave opinion, veered away from new analysis and gave her opion when she suggested that William share his feeling with a psychiatrist or his publicist, suggesting he is either mentally imbalanced or in it just for the money. Is that the NPR standard? Didn't think so! And you folks get upset with me for cutting through the B.S. and calling it the way it is.

ace, I'm not sure what you mean by your remark.

I'm not apt to engage in a lengthy debate because I've grown kind of fond of the pseudo-pithy manner of TFP participation that I've adopted of late. It's pleasant.

But if you want to clarify what you want me to respond to, then I will probably try.

Bullshit. Everytime I've responded directly to points made in IBD editorials you've ignored my responses.

Bullshit. You insinuate that Soros has malicious intentions, but then you try to cover your ass with the caveat that you don't know. It's a weaselly way of doing things. If you were so sure in your lack of confidence about Soros' true intentions you wouldn't be so quick to cast aspersions.

I find NPR's explanation plausible. I don't think it was the result of a vast liberal conspiracy. Replace what Williams said about muslims with any other minority group and the calls for his firing would be more prevalent.

For instance "I'm no bigot, but when I see a young black man walking down the street towards me, I get nervous."

"I'm no bigot, but when I see a person with an NRA sticker on their car, I get nervous."

etc.

Furthermore, many of the same folks who are foaming at the mouth about NPR "censoring" Williams' "free speech" were all too happy when it was Helen Thomas' head on the chopping block even though all of their convoluted defenses of Williams would also have applied equally to her.

Of course CEOs and news analysts aren't subject to the same standards. What world do you live in? You aren't calling it the way it is, you're calling it the way you want it to be.

this speaks for itself, i think:

Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things

Williams openly and honestly shared a fear that he holds, in his way he acknowledged that it is irrational - is it your view that it is inappropriate for people to openly discuss these issues in public?

Then depending on your response, what is the best way for people to deal with fears, given a willingness to acknowledge that a fear is inappropriate, wrong, or irrational?

My point is, first I don't care about NPR firing Williams, that is their choice, I just don't like the dishonesty in the reason given - but from a bigger picture point of view many Americans share the concern Williams expressed and that concern is reflected in thing like the NY city mosque controversy, I think we need to address the issue but it seems liberals want to silence or ridicule anyone willing to share their fears. I find that unhelpful, do you agree or disagree?

ace, what the fuck is "muslim garb"?

Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things


since "muslim garb" doesn't refer to anything at all, you're back to defending some imaginary "right" to say stupid things as if being-conservative and saying-stupid-things were synonymous.

and if that's your position, i agree with you.

What about your response to this one? What did I ignore?

How about it being a factual statement. I don't know what his intent is, this is true. I don't, nor did I, hide from my point of view on Sorros - I don't trust him, I would never trust him and I think he does things for his own personal gain. I equated him to inner-city drug dealers and gang thugs - that is my view. What was not clear about that? Is it that I separate my personal views and biases from facts, is that what causes a problem?

The facts are not on your side. I am not going to do a search of the things said by NPR journalist worse than what Williams said that did not result in a termination - you can do your own homework.

I laid-out a pattern of liberals over-reacting to "Fox News" and doing things in an irrational manner - when does a series of similar events become a pattern? If you and others don't see it now, it will occur some more - I correctly defined the issue, you just don't see it yet. If I was Obama, or a liberal I would stop and reflect on why there is a fear of Fox News. My answer would be to face them head on, go toe to toe with them, fight, do what Williams was doing, not run and hide, not cry like a toddler about how mean and bad Fox News is.

The best answer to that would be to talk about it, confront the fear - you will find that what identifies a person as a threat has nothing to do with skin color. But, given our history and crime statistic and how they are reported I can understand how people can have that fear. The answer is not to ridicule you, not to attempt to silence you, so why do you support NPR's action? I don't get it.

Many NRA members are in the "closet" and are not open about their NRA'ness because of the above kind of fears. You may be surprised by the number of NRA members you interact with everyday.

{Added} I did a Google search out of curiosity. There are about 4 million NRA members and about 8 million homosexual people in the US.



---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

The fear Williams expressed is irrational. I can not defend his point of view, but I will not ridicule it. Why, do you?

Ace, sometimes I forget that you can't keep track of the points you make, so that when I respond to one of them, you act as if I was responding to a different point.

There's no point in further discussion, you win the internet.

To recap: Soros (whose motivations you remain unsure about) is somehow like a drug dealing thug buying poor folks' goodwill (though you're not sure about this, just a gut feeling) and this is evidenced by his contributions to the Harlem Children's Zone, which he is using in his "War on Fox News" because by buying the goodwill of the families with small children in Harlem, Fox News loses (???). Nobody ever responds to the meat of your IBD parroting, except when they do, in which case you'll pretend you never said that nobody responds to your IBD parroting and shift focus to the current instance of nobody responding to the meat of your IBD parroting even after it was pointed out that nobody responds to the meat of your IBD parroting because you fail to respond to their responses. Finally, clearly, Juan Williams was fired because of George Soros and the mean ol' Fox News haters (or is it FEAR-ers?!!?) that comprise the whole of contemporary liberalism. I think I understand where you're coming from.

At least there's one comforting outcome from this whole darn mess!
...NPR can now fully focus on the hypocrisy of their white progressive elitism with without any uppity liberal negros speaking outside the approved talking-points.

(thanks George Soros!)

Any way you could summarize that point with an obviously irrelevant chart?

How about a Glenn Beck chart on the evils of Soros?

YouTube - Glenn Beck EXPOSES Public Enemy -- GEORGE SOROS! :: In Marxist Obama's Circle Of CRIME INC.!!

YouTube - Glenn Beck EXPOSES Public Enemy -- GEORGE SOROS! :: In Marxist Obama's Circle Of CRIME INC.!!

Since we know from otto that liberals don't like Beck's "investigative accuracy and persistence"

a little map of the far right hall of mirrors and this new george soros canard:

Conspiracy: Conservative media link Beck's "spooky dude" Soros to Williams firing | Media Matters for America

But, roach, IBD clearly says that we can't trust media matters.

i know, filtherton.

i'm no doubt fooled by all those direct quotes that seem so much like what these fox people actually said....

somehow this conversation seems perfect for the Halloween season.

As a liberal myself, I can't help but be a little titillated by the sheen of maleficent power being projected onto me and those of my ilk.

But as a pragmatic smartass, I can't help but think that it's also stupid and totally irrational.

I heard that Soros created AIDS to make gays, via their suffering, more sympathetic to the liberal media with the ultimate goal of legalizing human on animal marriage. Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced my evidentiary flow chart.

I think it's only fair to admit that when I see Japs in Geisha makeup photographing Pearl Harbor, I get a little nervous.

Why?... are you George Soros?

Here you go!

What?

Now that you put it that way I must be preeedy dumb.:shakehead:

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

I will say this about IBD - if you manage any money at all, even a 401(k) and you don't read IBD regularly, I hope that it is you or people like you on the opposite end of all my trades.:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------

I heard another liberal fired a subordinate in a knee-jerk fashion, in this case blaming a staffer when she could have easily avoided the whole situation.

Alex Sink fires staffer Brian May after governor's debate gaffe | Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota | WTSP.com 10 News

Fire first, protect your but, ask questions later. I wonder if she got a mil or two from Soros, what do you think.

---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

I must say, liberals do have a tendency to avoid responding to simple and direct questions.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

On a serious note if this is possible at this point - during WWII Japanese Americans where interned because of fear - this from a man who said we had nothing to fear but fear itself.

There is a fear of young black males.

There is a fear of NRA types.

There is a fear of Gays.

There is a fear of Muslims.

There is a liberal fear of Fox News.

So, you folks keep making your jokes, keep trying to minimize people or pretend away people with real fears.

are you implying that you asked me a simple and direct question? perhaps you might go back and re-read your obviously vague and indirect question.

I'll reiterate my point just because I'm waiting for the oven alarm to go off and have nothing else to do. The liberal movement in this country has no power and no means of attaining legitimate power. We are simply not built into the system. Therefore, we are no threat to you. The 'liberal war' is a fiction created by an entertainment monolith that finds it very profitable to convince you of a liberal war. Therefore you are a sucker, maybe even at this point a stooge. That is the essence of my argument and no amount of pie charts or ominous editorials indicating a forthcoming socialist revolution headed by the venerable (and maleficent) George Soros is going to convince me that your behavior indicates anything other than a particularly poignant SNL skit. Really, you can go have a cocktail. The war ended about 70 years ago.

i think we get it, ace. you, as a far right kinda guy, need to normalize racism because you occupy a political viewpoint from which this might seem reasonable:

Tea Party leader: Defeat Ellison because he's Muslim - War Room - Salon.com

good luck with that.

Fighting a liberal war is an ugly and brutal thing. We just need to understand that.

Is that anything people being told they should vote for Obama because he is black?

Being told not to vote for someone because they are Muslim is ridiculous. But if you're going to fault the Tea Party for things like this, then at least be honest and place the blame on Democrats as well.

dogzilla.

that's yet another post-bakke decision bit of conservative nonsense.

saying stuff like "muslims don't belong in congress...."----that's on you conservatives.
and you are doing this without any prompting.
no mirroring.
no reason, really.
the tea party just thinks this is reasonable.

it isn't.

For what it's worth, the Tea Party group that I was going to rallies with would have thrown this guy out by his ear. We had no tolerance for this sort of shit. I can only hope there will be a backlash within his group regarding this statement.

yeah, but this is different:

kind of a problem for tpn, i would think.now that it's public.

Really? It took me one google search to find this.

It's OK to vote for Obama because he's black - Barack Obama News - Salon.com

Salon.com is hardly a conservative news source.

I'm sure if I had the time to search further right now I could find lots more liberal sources taking the same position.

Saying people shouldn't be in Congress because he is Muslim is stupid. So is saying someone should be president because he is black is equally stupid.

Your bias is showing.