but juan williams was not prosecuted for anything. he violated the professional code of conduct he signed when he took the job at npr. period.

there's no violation of freedom of speech in this.

so far as i can see, mostly what's happened is what you'd support, cimmaron.

ace is arguing a different "point" and isn't having a terribly good time of it because the premise is really very strange. however it is an aspect of the tea-party/palin right defense of williams---which is really about increasing fox news market-share (are all the main players in the tea party pundit space also on fox/s payroll?)---and to use it as yet another instanciation of the far right's Problem with npr.

which is about red-baiting, nothing more nothing less.


but the only reason i (speaking for myself) have been bothering with ace's "argument" is that it's a repeat of a talking point. he can't defend it. i don't think it's defensible. i don't think it's even supposed to be defensible. it was meant to last a news cycle or 3 and disappear. it didn't have to be logical. it just had to get traction for a little while. that's how conservative media strategy has worked for a long time. get traction. nothing else matters.

rb-

I suppose I was responding to the suggestion that speech such as what Juan said should be determined by the government to be "hate speech" and that there should be some punishment put down by the government. That is something I would oppose for fear that one day our protest, whatever it is, would be deemed the same and squashed.

It is unfortunate that what he said wasn't soundly rejected by both sides, and that was the end of it. Frankly, I think NPR was a little to quick on the draw. If they had delayed their decision, I think it would have probably played out with Juan apologizing and we all would have been back to business as usual. It was only in the firing, that all of this has risen to scandal. Everyone in the media jumped to sides a little too early, and the sides are a little too extreme.

We have given privately to NPR for several years because I believe they have a place in our nation - that and Fiona on Thistle and Shamrock. I have struggled with the federal funding issue because it conflicts with "my role of federal government" versus "the public need to promote the arts".

I tend to have difficulty with what NPR did in this matter because it was for political speech that they sacked him. By political, I mean it was political context, not the actual bigoted statement. So, while I like the idea of some public funding for arts, NPR does have quite a bit of politics on their air and it does start to rub me that public funds goes to it and that they then censored their political speech, in a way, on a publicly funded airwave. Overall, I think the benefit of having their arts available outweighs my distaste for the existence of politics in their realm - that and Fiona.

yes, but this only works when the listening, or watching public is educated enough to make sense of it all. more and more it seems they arn't.

Juans 'penalty' is a windfall bonus of a massive 2+ million dollar contract from a propaganda organization. who, in ironic turn will argue to shut down more free speech by defending NPR.

well, cimmaron, the question of how npr proceeded is different from that of whether they had grounds to do it. and i think the apology for the how that was issued a day or two after the firing covers that, yes? i mean i never enjoyed williams' work on npr---he annoyed me in the way cokie roberts did when she waxed conservative, but was always far less informed than cokie roberts---but had i been in charge of things at npr, i wouldn't have fired him on the phone.

but i likely would have pulled the trigger earlier because i think that taking gigs on fox news is a priori a violation of journalistic ethics---at least on the talking head shows like o-reilly. the shouting class. all that.

as far as public funding of something like npr---i think we'd be a whole lot better off as a society if the airwaves had remained really public and the corporate sector not been allowed to own media outlets at all. in the real world, this need not at all mean "state control of information"---information can be freer without the corporate sector. think the united states for an example of how private sector ownership of information outlets can be a very very bad thing. so i think it'd be crazy to privatize npr.

It's almost as ridiculous as the notion that you seem to have that your irrational fears of muslimy looking people would evaporate if only you could explain to them that your insecurities are their fault.

Then why do you think that your inability to perceive moderate on extremist muslim outrage is justification for your fear of muslimy looking people?

And these mixed messages make you get all tingly when you see someone who looks muslim because???


I don't want to silence you. Ridicule you? Yes. That is the appropriate way to respond to folks who obstinately and publicly use flawed reasoning to justify religious intolerance.

Of course I'm not above irrational fear. The key to getting away from irrational fears is recognizing that they're irrational and then, via the disinfecting light of critical thought, choose to stop being afraid. This is different from your method, which seems to be to recognize that your fears are irrational and then justify them with even more irrationality. Because you'd be less irrationally afraid of muslimy people if they could somehow unite and monolithically convince you that they abhor islamic extremism.

I understand that slippery slope. Like I said, I hadn't given it much thought. But, the standard of 'Americans rejecting hatred' is as not ubiquitous as it should be. Obviously. Nor is it in Europe where they have found reasonable cause to legislate against it. And, rather than moving forward into the new century with declining support for racist views, this is a time when you see more Americans rationalizing racial/religious/ethnic/cultural intolerance. That, too, is a slippery slope.

rb -

The trouble I have with Williams is his inconsistency. Whenever I hear him, just prior to his response, I can never predict the direction he would take his opinion. I admire men who remain consistent in their message, even if it is unpopular. I do feel as if he tailored his message (not his style) to his current audience. That's not pragmatism, that's hypocrisy. As I said at the beginning of the thread, I don't really care that NPR fired him because I think an employer should be able to hire and fire whomever they want.

boink -

I wonder if Fox did that as an F- You! to NPR?

One final word here, and nothing you ever read from me will be more important.

If you have a son/brother or any male child that you love, if they ever tell you about their fears, don't punish, ridicule, ostracize them, at first listen. Whenever a man openly talks about his fears and then acknowledge that those fears may be irrational, that man is doing a service, a good thing, he sends a message to young men and boys that having fears is normal, that it is normal to have internal conflict, that it is o.k. to verbalize those internal mental conflicts. Positive dialog that follows will resolve those internal mental conflicts. There is a big difference between those who really hate, and those who have irrational fears.

mm -

...and be sure to tell them not to verbalize those fears on national television when their jobs are on the line, that perhaps the privacy of your home is a safer forum.

right. so now juan williams---and by extension ace as well----are being put upon by mean old everything and everybody after they opened up and confessed some dark inner secret. because mean old everything is just so insensitive. bad bad mean old everything.


and who would confess to an inner fear in privacy when exhibitionism is o so much fun?

I really don't know what to say to this...

Are you saying that the secret to getting through to the tea party mentality when it comes to racial issues is to sit them down, listen to what they have to say and then dialog with them about their irrational fears so that I can then gently coax them into thinking like a liberal?

If so, then sign me up!

Will that work with their irrational fears about socialism and big government, too?

I realize that many of you don't get it, and I can't explain it. If you ever take a step back and take a broader look at the underlying issues that cause "racism" and violence let me know.

The first step is to try to understand the difference between the people who have a true inner hate for others and those who don't - but do have an irrational fear. People who do not have true inner hate can be helped in my experience. Most people who I think are being called "racists" here actually have irrational fears and can be helped.

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

...

People with irrational fears about a racial group are racist. Racism: negative prejudgment of people based on their race. It doesn't matter if they know their fears are irrational. It doesn't even matter if they are hateful about it or not. Plenty of racists do not go about sneering at Mexicans and defacing the neighborhood Mosque. It doesn't mean that they're going to change their views after getting a good talking to, either. Know why? Because they are sharing the views of their friends, family and to some extent, their communities.

Like rb mentioned way back, this is a very touchy subject for me, too, so it's not one that you're going find me giving a lot of leeway on. Racial prejudgment is one of the ugliest, most ignorant mental inclinations that people can indulge themselves in and I am hard pressed to find real respect for anyone does.

I think it is quite common for people to have somewhat irrational fears about those who are perceived to be different. However I recall Jesse Jackson once commented, “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.”

I suspect some Muslims may feel the same way as ace about other Muslims on the plane. I'm not trying to justify this way of thinking, just trying to better understand it.

<picks up the bat and walks over to the carcass>

I heard a Mexican comedian say, "There are two things I can't tolerate: racial profiling and muslims on my plane." I think it was Carlos Mencia.

<hands bat back to Ace>

if you have an irrational fear and realise it's irrational, why can't you just get over it ?

like a feeling or a desire you want something, but in fact can't afford it ? you KNOW you can't afford it and can't buy it, so you just chill and wait til next payday ?

I work with a kid who uses the term 'gay' all the time to denigrate another employee. I use this term sometimes but consciously try to avoid it, because it's just wrong (inaccurate, he's a creep, and useless, but not gay) and it's feeding the evil wolf little scraps (thanks for that analogy :) )

I'd like to know how to argue my co worker out of using that term...he's a bit of a macho little b-boy...a white kid. overall a nice kid but has issues inside himself with gays I guess.

I guess my basic question is why let an irrational thought take the lead in decision making ?

anyone 'strange' to me, Muslims who wear their faith overtly, Jews with the weird side burns, skinheads (actually, any punk rock kids with shaved heads cause I don't know what they're about) all downtown white people in suits ( I think they all work for banks that stole the worlds money, see Rolling Stone Goldman Sachs bubble article) they all case me to think all sorts of things, but I know it's all random thoughts not based in fact and 99% of the time has nothing to do with the particular individuals I happen to pass on the street.

I don't need to take a step back, I can recognize my irrational thoughts for what they are, I think those who CAN'T need to take a step back, or see a counselor or whatever it takes to get their inner child to stfu. i.e. think rationally.

I agree, my question has been what should be done to fix the problem.

Some don't realize their fear is irrational.
Some know but don't understand why.
Some just don't care.

I see three different methods needed to address each of the problems. Others don't - I think their approach has failed.

---------- Post added at 10:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

I would start by asking him questions about the issue to get him talking. Eventually his issues will surface. In many instances it is simply a peer pressure issue. Or, in order for a young man to show his "manlyness", he has to make jokes about gay men to impress his buddies. For some it is a much deeper issue, but I have a 13 year-old son and about a year ago he became very aware of gay people and he and his friends thought making fun of gay people was the funniest thing in the world. I talked to him about it. We have a neighbor who is about a year younger than my son who has some effeminate characteristics and my son on one occasion did nothing while this young man was getting bullied on the school bus everyday. We talked about that too, including the expectation that good people do not sit passively while others are being harmed. I saw this as a growing process for my son. He is not a bad person, he simply needed guidance and support. I suppose the PC police would want to hang him, figuratively.

Part of being an adult is not just saying everything that pops into your head, but instead modulating yourself. That's how Imus got fired a few years ago, by popping off without thinking. This is all a byproduct of the overall societal decline in decorum.

And in a perfect world...or perhaps when we enter


Until then we need to work with adults who perhaps don't get it. Oh, but my saying that means that I endorse bad behavior, yea right.

it's been going downhill ever since Beavis and Butthead hit the air. funny cause I think the idea is, see stupidity, laugh at it and rise above it. what seems to happen is, see stupidity, and go do stupid things.

Feel free to ignore me at this point.

But, for all those holier than thou folks who would never be irrational, have irrational fears, etc. is this you?

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Hea...es/DrS_9.6.jpg

I am not laughing at the ears, promise.

...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hL7HogamDV...tree_smile.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9etVnS4R1A...imeSpockSwings

even Spock has his inner demons, but ht's best when he keeps them in check...

I'm not going to look up pics of Data and Lore...:rolleyes:

Aren't you reading what people are writing? The suggestion that an ordinarily good person may have an irrational fear, is met with contempt and ridicule in this thread.

Not new to me. I reflect on things I have have done and I try to understand them. I have learned to talk about them. When I don't understand, I ask questions.

...

ace, I wasn't saying that people can't have non-rational fears. All I was saying is that you don't have to talk publicly about your nonrational feelings, demons or what-have-you. Some judgment should be exercised.

This post just proves that you either haven't been reading/understanding the responses to your posts or your deliberately mischaracterizing them to make yourself feel better.

My point from the very beginning is that it is better if there is an open or even a public dialog about these issues. How many millions of Americans share the fear Williams has? Is just sweeping it under the rug going to make it go away? I don't think so. Is calling people a "racist" going to make it go away? No. Is making it illegal going to make it go away? No. Are all the people who share this fear bad people? No. Are some bad people? Yes.

My second point is that males in particular are taught to suppress their fears, I argue that this is not healthy - I argue that this often leads to violence or to poor decision making. Adult men can serve as a role model, we have to let young men in particular know that it is o.k. to have fears, to have inner conflicts and that it is o.k. to talk about it. NPR has every right to fire Williams, I just see what he did in a positive light. I would be proud to have a professional association with him no matter how much we disagreed on issues.

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

I disagree. I think some of you are from Venus and I am from Mars or something like that, I always try my best to answer questions.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 PM ----------

My assumption is that people are imperfect, including me. Given flaws, my first assumption is not that a person is a "racist" if they make a racially offensive comment. Some here, explicitly said they make that assumption.

I think there is a difference between people who have real hatred for certain groups of people in their heart and people who may have fears that are not rational. My position on this has not been accepted here by many - I find that amazing because the truth in the statement is so obvious. My conclusion is that there is some impossibly high standard they expect everyone to live up to and I question if they always live up to that mythical standard in their own lives.

I have not mischaracterized anything. In fact one of the reasons we are beating a dead horse, is for me to try to really understand what is being said. At this point it is clear.

Somebody, please....

Ace, I was at a meeting today where one of the attendees was a very good looking woman with ginormous tatas. I'm sure other men in the meeting noticed and that taking note of her attractive face and big wazoombas is very common.

But none of us talked about it. Even though I'm sure all of us would have liked for her to show us what she has.

We exercise judgment. Just because we think something or have feelings about it doesn't mean we have to discuss it publicly.

See what I mean? Just because someone has what he realizes is an irrational fear of someone in Muslim garb doesn't mean he has to discuss it on TV. Poor judgment.

If you are not interested why read this thread or a posting from someone who bores you? I don't understand the message you are trying to send. Are you suggesting I have a problem because I am repetitive, simplistic, use bad analogies and have mediocre writing skills at best, all of which I know and live with. And, I even recall writing that at some point I would respond with silliness - and I even recall writing that some may want to start ignoring my posts on this subject when it became clear to me that I had nothing new or insightful to add. So, I don't get your post.

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

I get that. But what about the guy who actually has a problem with being sexist and unprofessional. How does society help that guy? this guy may be beyond help, I agree and may need to be sued or put in jail. But if that guy never learned proper decorum - why wouldn't you talk to him - even if you needed to confront his behavior publicly to stop him from abusing another human-being. If I managed a group of guys going into a setting where there is a risk of that kind of poor behavior - I would meet with them and talk about acceptable behaviors before the event, not putting one person on the spot. Isn't that what being an adult is about too?

...

"Ace, I was at a meeting today where one of the attendees was a very good looking woman with ginormous tatas. I'm sure other men in the meeting noticed and that taking note of her attractive face and big wazoombas is very common.

But none of us talked about it. Even though I'm sure all of us would have liked for her to show us what she has.

We exercise judgment. Just because we think something or have feelings about it doesn't mean we have to discuss it publicly.

See what I mean? Just because someone has what he realizes is an irrational fear of someone in Muslim garb doesn't mean he has to discuss it on TV. Poor judgment."

If the purpose of the meeting was to discuss stereotyping of women, you all absolutely should have brought up what you were feeling. Not toward her as an individual, but it would have not only been appropriate for each of you to discuss your reactions, it would have been a pointless meeting had you not.

HOWEVER, I doubt you meeting was about that. So it would have been weird for one of you to blurt out "I WANT TO SEE HER BOOBS!", just as it would have been weird had if Juan and the crew were discussing the election and he blurted out "I"M AFRAID OF MUSLIMS ON PLANES!"

I'm not going to hold my breath for Palin, O'Reilly et al to come out in defense of Keith Olbermann, who is being punished for using his constitutional right to political speech and "communicating" something that a lot of people agree with.

filtherton,

I don't know this story. What is Olbermann being punished for?

Yeah, I just found it. Sounds good to me. Just like Juan, you break the rules of your employer, you pay the price. He'll be back in a week, they need him more than he needs them.

wow, I have a little more respect for MSNBC now...I mean Obe is generally on my side of an argument but upholding impartiality is important.

too bad they don't practice this ideal over at the faux news crisco party for the Gang Of Perverts.

Maddow talked about this the other night. FoxNews has no rules about this whatsoever (obviously)