the juan williams affair
 

i wasn't going to touch this issue, but this afternoon a column appeared in the washington post that rehearsed the positions being taken by all the usual populist rightwing talking heads on the fact that npr fired juan williams....and it has a transcript of williams' remarkably stupid interaction with bill o-reilly that got him fired.

it's just really clear from this how the right works at the moment:

Under God: Sarah Palin, citing Juan Williams' firing, says it's time to 'defund' NPR - Elizabeth Tenety

i think this speaks for itself.

here's npr's weblink on this:

Juan Williams: My Words Were 'Not A Bigoted Statement' : The Two-Way : NPR

and here a washington post overview:

washingtonpost.com


it seems to me that there are several things that converge on this matter.

from conservative-land, the williams thing turns is another occasion to repeat its main identity politics memes, to renew the old "culture war" that has served them so well in displacing political speech away from statements about the world and onto statements made by conservatives about their version of the world as they prefer to imagine it exists.


but out in the wider world, it seems that this is being conflated with a free speech question.

is this one?

freedom of speech means you cannot be prosecuted for statements you make short of shouting fire in a theater.
it does not mean that there are no consequences to speech acts.
it simply means those consequences are not legal.

but there are news organizations which are conflicted. for example, you can read editorials in the washington post that argue npr acted too quickly.

this seems a guild response, like people are thinking that they could say something stupid at any point, just explode with pent-up stupid, and loose their jobs.

is that a freedom of speech matter?

what do you think?

is this an issue for you at all?

I don't think it's a freedom of speech matter from the bill of rights standpoint as he's not facing charges for his speech.

However, it kinda goes against the idea of free speech. I consider this in the same boat as an employer firing someone for the type of political bumper sticker they have.

It's not a freedom of speech issue, but it looks pretty bad on NPR's part.

____

some more thoughts: why doesn't NPR drop the minuscule amount it indirectly gets from federal funding? then this becomes a non issue really.

also why is what he said even remotely offensive? honestly i think it's a normal reaction when you look at the bombardment of security at the airport with all the big brother warnings on the loudspeakers and the constant threat level warnings. that combined with reports of the government daily that says al qaida plans to attack blah blah blah...

it doesn't take a racist to be afraid of a muslim on a plane when we are getting bombarded with this propaganda. and i'm saying this as a person who doesn't even believe radical muslims attacked us on 9/11 (yup a tr00fer).

Psst: your company can fire you for things you do in public which they believe reflects poorly on their judgement of employing you. Once hired, you are not guaranteed a job, regardless of the stupid things you say in life.

If I went to a bar with a company shirt on, got drunk, got arrested, got my mug shot put on the news in my company's shirt - uh, yep, I'd be fired. It just works that way, and thank God it does.

I understand what Juan was doing - giving an overly honest and very personal glimpse into his knee jerk reaction upon seeing something that makes him uncomfortable. But, that's why God gave us lips - to keep those impulsive thoughts in our heads and our person safely employed. In my household, we call it "the filter". The filter is good.

Upon reading the story that he was fired, I thought to myself, "Fox will hire him by the end of the week." It was the end of the day, actually.

I know I'm not the first to say this, but it's interesting how the usual suspects have reacted to his firing compared to how they reacted to the firing of Helen Thomas. I guess Williams is lucky he didn't say anything bad about Jewish folk.

I don't think that NPR should have fired him. I thought that the idea behind NPR is that it's listeners were intelligent enough to consider ideas on their merits and not whether the idea's proponent is scared of people who dress funny on airplanes.

Seems to be working out well for him though. I can't imagine NPR could match his new Fox salary.

Does NPR even receive federal money? I don't think they do.

I think it's like 10% federal and 6-8% other governmental funding (cities, states etc...)

For the record I don't think Williams should have been fired for stating his opinion. I think it was stupid and honestly not very logical. I think if terrorist get on a plane with ill intent they're going to be doing their best to blend in and not be in "Muslim garb."

The rights been calling to end federal funding for NPR and PB for years, doesn't report stuff the way they'd like.

I don't care much one way or the other about his firing. It happens to good people every day for much less public, much less stupid behavior. (And yes, I am saying that what he said was stupid.)
It's not as if he had no options afterward (as it has been pointed out). Plus, a lot of people that never heard of Juan Williams will now call him a personal hero for having the courage to be a moron on Fox News. Everybody wins.

Was the right equally upset when Rick Sanchez got canned for degrading Jews?

So....how about that culture war, eh?

After reading that exchange, the thing that most pops out for me is that O'Reilly claims that the "whole nations" of (let's focus on) Afghanistan and Pakistan are essentially terrorist. A curious point of view when you consider that a hundred times more Pakistanis and Afghans have been killed by Islamic fundamentalists in recent years than non-Muslims who have been killed by them.

On-topic, I actually am a little surprised at NPR's reaction. I will go out on a limb and say it was an overreaction. Look at what Williams actually says in this interview. First, he actually lays out two points of view - first he seems to argue that there is a war on Islam, but then he counters O'Reilly by making the common analogy to Timothy McVeigh.

Second, look at the content of his statement. He isn't really saying that he's scared of Muslims (he goes on to point out that there are good Muslims - not exactly a mind-blowing realization, but hey). He says he worries when he sees people riding airplanes 'who choose to identify first and foremost as Muslims' even on airplanes. I disagree with his assessment but in the scheme of things, this is actually not far out there in unreasonable-land.

So I'm not sure whether the reason I react this way is because of where Williams sits in the _spectrum_ - that is to say, normalizing for American public opinion, he is actually on the liberal side, even if that says more about our politics than it does about Williams - or maybe because I just don't see the public good in marginalizing 'centrist' voices when there are so many crazies out there commanding huge audiences. Don't we need every voice we can get?

No, I don't see it as a free speech issue.

for what it's worth, i am not personally interested in juan williams at all. i thought what he said was stupid and banal---he's not the baroque lunatic racist that o-reilly is---instead at worst he seems a tepid bigot. i think he got fired mostly for saying something that was really stupid. and i never cared for his npr work. i thought him consistently lame and one-dimensional.

what interested me, in a kinda train wreck way, was the attempts to reframe this from an uninteresting incident involving a b-list celebrity into a confrontation in the conservative identity-reinforcement spill-over zone they call the "culture wars"---which forced palin and gingrich and the other main populist spokesmodels to (a) defend the statement is if it were racist and not merely stupid, (b) invoke the right's paranoid huntington thesis worldview to justify the racism, make it "necessary" by making it a "Recognition of Reality" then (c) to duplicate that us/them business (war on "terror" anyone?) with another version in which the Heroic Conservatives Stand Up to Political Correctness and Say What It Is.

by the end of that, juan williams being an idiot is framed as an act of heroism of some bizarre kind.
and this topped with a nice steaming bonbon in the shape of a canard about that bastion of "leftism" npr---which had it's insitutional spine removed during the reagan period because of the exact same canard-usage, but hey, whipping boys are whipping boys and why let go of a good one?

the frame that these conservatives place around this is really curious.
you have to wonder what they're thinking.

I see. Well, it _is_ election season, and nothing gets out the vote like imagined persecution ;)

Van Jones was fired (or resigned) because liberals feared Fox News. Shirley Sherrod was fired because liberals feared Fox News. Juan Williams was fired because liberals feared Fox News. Seems to be a pattern of liberals firing liberals because of a fear of Fox news. Seems to be a pattern. Perhaps, liberals should stop fearing Fox News.

And I still don't get the liberal obsession with Palin and now the obsession with O'donnell. Was this a non-issue with Roach until Palin Tweeted about it??? Is that the take from his OP?

first off, that nonsense about "fearing fox news" is as astonishing a misstatement of reality as i've ever seen you manage, ace.

do you warm up before you invert the world? like stretch or something? or do you just plunge right into it?



i'm interested in conservative rhetoric, ace & this is an instances that allow us to peer into the populist right's hall of mirrors and see a new little self-enclosed and self-enclosing rhetoric machine taking shape, watch it being cobbled together through the recycling and reorganizing of already existing conservative-memes. in that respect, palin is a collage-maker.

Call'em the way I see'em. Even Rev. Wright was kicked to the curb because liberals feared Fox News. How else do explain this stuff. 20 years with a spiritual guider and Fox News starts a campaign, and the association ends. Van Jones, was who he was, never pretended, never changed before or after getting fired. Introduce Fox News and he gets kicked to the curb. Ms. Sherrod, not even given a change to drive home was fired on the roadside because liberals feared the release of a report on Fox News. William's debating with a host on Fox News after a blow up on The View with the same Host, shares a personal feeling (not really why he got fired, was it?), gets fired.

I am astonished you don't see it!

I plunge right in.:thumbsup: The world needs to warm up for me.:thumbsup:

Williams should have been a hero to liberals for going toe to toe with the folks at Fox News. Williams has respect in conservative circles because of it. Like O'Rielly said last night, getting fired by NPR was good for his career. I have seen Williams on Fox news more than I have seen Palin - I would argue Williams' voice is as influential as Palin's. William, being liberal, talking to conservatives can actually change views. Palin talks to an audience that shares her views - liberals obsessed with her don't get that.

Ace, you're plainly confused if you think the cowardly PR moves taken by the Obama admin have anything to do with liberalism. Williams' firing makes sense within the context of the explanation given by NPR. I still don't agree with it.

When I first saw he was fired for comments he made I thought "hmm that doesn't seem right" then I realized I can't just go around and say whatever I want to say with respect to my job and expect to remain employed.

Then I saw what he actually said...and I thought "wow how stupid, he is afraid of people dressing a certain way." I think it was stated above but I had the same thought, a radical Islamic terrorist intent on committing a terrorist act in the US is most likely going to dress like American's in order to blend in and not be hassled.

Honestly, I have no problem with what NPR did, Juan Williams should realize that as a "journalist" he can't just say whatever he feels like and expect his agency to keep him employed. Unless of course you work for Fox News then you can say as much stupid stuff as you want and they will probably give you your own show.

The context of NPR's explanation??? That was as clear as mud to me. Then we have the quotes from the NPR CEO about Williams personally attacking him - it seems to me the focus was his appearances on Fox News, the liberal war against Fox News, and not what he said.

The PR on all these matters, described, follow a pattern including the Williams termination - an over-reaction to Fox News. I think it is a reaction based on fear. I believe if Williams said the very same things on MSNBC or another outlet, this would have been a non-issue to them. So, if Fox News is the key variable, why?

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

No doubt NPR has the right to fire Williams, and Williams certainly is not going to be harmed, but the key question remains - why do liberals fear Fox News to the point where they act in irrational ways?

I would challenge you on this. If I got to know you, I bet I can find some things that will create a fear response, even in areas where you bear no conscious prejudice. Terminating people for sharing their honest views, seems wrong to me and I would rather live in a world where people openly discuss biases that they have. Seem to me that is the only way to get beyond them.

i think it's good that npr fired williams for being a bonehead.

williams today is saying that he thinks npr wanted to fire him for a while because he appeared regularly on the infotainment shows like o-reilly and hannity.
i think it's the case that being involved with fox news undermines one's credibility.
espousing views like those espoused on fox news undermines one's credibility.

so i agree with npr. you cannot possibly be taken as neutral or even competent if you espouse the views that williams did. because they're stupid.




it's a shame that we are saddled with a conservative movement in the states that is able to survive only by undermining the standards of rational discourse.
not all views are the same simply because they're views.


of course, the response will be the same as it always is. conservative politics are not about the world, it's not about being coherent or making things better...it's about conservatives being victimized.

liberal war :lol:

One can't help but laugh (considering there is no such thing as a liberal war) while conservatives shadowbox with those nasty old fire-breathing liberals. (I hear they eat babies, too!)

Yet we are the ones who are afraid.

Poor Juan Williams. Not just a dumbass who said something, not only stupid, but also irrational on television and lost his job over it, but a casualty in the liberal war against Fox News.

Bring in the violins, Percy Faith. I think this one needs a soundtrack.

What do you call it? Philanthropy?

It looks like liberal George Soros has been busy in the past week with millions in open donations (finally not hidden or laundered) to liberal organizations like NPR, the HuffPost, Media Matters, etc. for the specific purpose to bring down FOX News (Yes, he was very specific in the terms of usage for these "donations")...

http://images1d-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-...nticache=38623
... instead of the usual funneling money through organizations like the Tides Foundation. Until now, George's war of progressive influence has been chiefly distributed by Tides Foundation and various "other channels":
http://www.muckety.com/maps/4166/George-Soros.png
It's good to see the Liberal war... I mean Philanthropy... is no longer lurking in the shadows.

Yep, clearly George Soros is using the Harlem Children's Zone and the Center for Sensible Marijuana Policy (and apparently some of his relatives) as secret proxies in his war to take down Fox News. :rolleyes:

The addition of visuals doesn't make your argument any more compelling, especially when it's obvious that you haven't taken the two seconds required to actually understand them yourself.

I guess a difference is that conservatives know when they are in a war (figurative, if that actually need be said). I use the term "liberal war" because I am a conservative. I think the current "war" started during the Clinton administration and escalated when Bush "stole" the election from Gore. The events in this period have not been a laughing matter.



Yet, you don't explain the actions of liberals. Why dump Wright? Why dump Jones? Why dump Sherrod? Why dump williams? In each case, and there are more, liberals over-react in an irrational manner based on fear in my opinion. If it is something else, tell me what it is.

I am betting most did not hear the full segment on the Factor. Just like with Sherrod, Williams was actually making and taking an anti-discriminatory stand. He was the liberal voice arguing against O'Riely's position.

NPR simply does not have the guts to give the real reason they fired Williams. Liberals everywhere should be offended and respond in his defense similar to the dependable position Sherrod had.

{added} I looked for a clip of the full segment that I could attach here, the best I found was a link:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/10/21/...#axzz1384Jvrsz

Like I stated, Williams should be honored by liberals (and like I stated many conservatives, including me, have a great deal of respect for Williams) for going toe to toe with O'Reilly on this issue and I think some of you here who came to conclusions before seeing the whole segment should be embarrassed.

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

In the 80's "community outreach" was commonly used by big time drug dealers to gain favor in the inner city. This is not a new tactic used to control people.

Well, I guess since it happened in the 80s then it's what's happening now. No need to think too deeply on this. Just go with our guts. :no: It's best not to define our opinions in too much detail. That way, when potentially conflicting details emerge we can adapt without having to rethink our original perspective.



I suppose his contributions to "Quantum Fund" mean he's part of the vast conspiracy that's tried to kill James Bond in the last two Bond movies.

I don't know what he is trying to do, I only point out the fact that the tactic of giving out a few turkey's during the holiday season or doing some superficial stuff for the poor urban children is a tactic that has been used for nefarious reasons. His intentions may be pure, I don't know, but let's not be naive.

And you may have raped and murdered a young girl when you were younger. It's happened before, it'll happen again. I'm not saying that you did or you didn't, just that doing so is in the scope of possible human behavior and that you are a human. So, you know, maybe you did. I'm agnostic on it, though. Because if it was the case that you raped and murdered a young girl, it isn't like you'd admit it on here. Nope, you's probably just deny, deny, deny. Shit, that's what I'd do. I just think that it's entirely possible that you did rape and murder a young girl.

That meme will never get old.

Roachboy
but this is exactly what fox news does every day, is is their raison detre. rattling the cages of the misinformed masses with more misinformation, to the point of inciting violence even. it's near criminal if it's not out and out criminal. fox exists for the sole reason to control the minds of the sheeple to the benefit of the PTB/corporate oligarchy.

so for Juan Williams to lower himself to engage in the yelling matches that go on on fox is pretty egregious behaviour imho. he's imho giving fox a talking point to badmouth NPR in return for a 2+ million dollar contract, in effect selling out the American public for a fat payday. how fucking foul is that ?!? he fucking BELONGS on fox the fucking piece of dogshit. he did this on purpose, he knew he was crossing the line. how could he not ? I would even go as far as saying fox, and all it's owners/backers would be more than happy to buy themselves a fake controversy like this just to argue defunding NPR.
I had no idea Juan was even on fox, I don't care what he said on fox, the mere fact he apears on this network is totally unacceptable and damning to his credibility. pay me and you can stick your had up my ass and I'll say anything you want all day long. I can't watch fox cause it makes me angry, which is is exactly what they they work to do. rattle people up with a bunch of false hyperbole, I know when I'm being conned/played and if Juan wants to join these scumbags, fuck him.

if there is a hell, I hope he burns in it. he is a very cheap whore indeed.

Juan Williams
well Juan maybe they arn't fucking AMERICANS !?!? or maybe only Americans take plane rides ??? whatever man, it's all a bunch of scripted crap.

filtherton
yeah, NPR listeners, but he's moonlighting on the fox clown show yapping at FOX watchers, who don't think like NPR listeners. he's validating all the fears of the ignorant. fanning fires of irrational thought. this is the total antithesis of NPR. fuck yes fire him.

To assume that you are right, Ace and otto, I would have assume that there is a real, substantial and influential liberal power base in this country with the power to make changes in accordance with liberal ideals. I don't. I don't think there has been that kind of liberal power in the US in many decades. I think there is just exactly the amount of liberal influence in this country that is allowed to be. Therefore the idea of a 'liberal war' against anything having to do with the status quo is ridiculous.

It seems to me, rather, that conservatives need a 'liberal war' (much like they have needed all wars) in order to keep moving the status quo further and further to the right - which is exactly what is happening.

Honestly, I don't know who George Soros is. I hear the name a lot, but I don't know anything about him. But I do know that one man promoting powerless progressive organizations in an effort to dilute the preponderance of corporate-sponsored conservative influence in the US does not a 'liberal war' make. It's ridiculous.

You guys are suckers. But hey, you're on the winning team so have fun fighting your 'liberal wars' and 'socialist threats.' I won't be playing along.

I'm not sure I can answer this question...I can't really believe that liberals fear fox news. I think this may just be a perception of certain people...but then again perception is reality so sure why not, liberals fear fox news.

The problem I have with Fox is just how blatantly terrible they are. I used to watch Fox news a few years ago when it was a little more reasonable but it has gotten way out of hand now. There is no journalism there it's just people spouting off their own gut feelings about stuff and making it seem like a news story. Just report the facts of the story and leave it at that. I'm tired of all news agencies really, give me the facts relevant to the event and move on.


Look I'm not saying I don't have my own personal prejudices about certain people...but if I were a journalist on a news network I would have to be careful about what I say so I don't influence others with my prejudices. NPR may have certain standards for its employees and if they feel an employee is no longer living up to their standards because of that person's actions or words then they have the right to fire that employee. Any other job is going to have similar codes of conduct.

I could face disciplinary action in my job if I talk on my cell phone while driving on official company business or driving a car provided by my company. That's a fairly intrusive policy, but guess what...I don't have a right to a job its a privilege to have a job and if my company, who pays for my health insurance doesn't want to assume the risk of me driving and talking on my phone then they have a right to make that policy.

I don't know if talking about biases is the only way to get beyond them, I think it is a way as long as its done responsibly. But I also think its a way to pass biases on to other people. I mean look at all the anti-Muslim stuff that goes on on Fox News, those people aren't constructively talking about biases against Muslims. Instead they are doing it in a way that promotes and enhances people's biases. Even comments like "there are good Muslims out there" aren't constructive because that makes it sound like Muslims are inherently bad and its rare that you will find a good one. That might not be what you meant when you said it but statement does contain some negative connotation. It's like when people would say a black person was "very well spoken" making it sound like most black people are illiterate and aren't expected to speak well. It's bullshit and it should stop, especially in news organizations.

ace, your pet theory about "liberal fear" is like the sweet nothings you might say to yourself as you choke the bishop.
"o you are so big and so mighty, you are so manly and strong. all others tremble before you...."

it takes that kind of imagination to conflate contempt for faux news and everything it stands for with fear.
a hyperbolic imagination.

i think fox news is a travesty. it was a significant professional blunder for williams to appear on fox programs because on the one hand it legitimates a conservative travesty and on the other it undermines the professional image of npr as a news gathering organization.
williams did not appear on news programs, but rather on sideshows like hannity and o-reilly. frequently.
it just happened that this time he said a boneheaded thing and got himself fired.

there's no "fear" in that and the action is far from "irrational".

williams will likely fit right in with the other idiots at fox.

My response was to your quote here:

The position you took along with the sarcasm, seems naive to me. I don't know what the guy's intent is, you don't either - but to pretend that his motives can't be for reasons other than altruism prompted me to respond. I used the example given because of direct personal experience. I did some anti-gang volunteer work with some pre-teens in a drug and gang infested area. The kids idolized the gang leaders and big time drug dealers. They thought those were the guys that cared, even-though those were the same guys who would kill their fathers, turn their mothers out, and get them killed - all because those guys may have given them some shoes, or fixed up a b-ball court, etc. And, yes I am a cynic.

Apparently, he was warned before about making statements on other media outlets that he wouldn't make on his own.

It seems he crossed the line---again---and was fired for it this time.

On a serious note, the use of the term "war" is a bit of hyperbole, however given two opposing ideologies regardless of which one holds the advantage there is an inherent conflict. The conflict is going to be most volatile where the two meet. For example DADT - 20 years ago the issue was not a volatile issue for most now it is. another one of those issues that is prominent today is the conflict between religious freedom and religious extremist who want to exploit those freedoms in the context of 9/11 and Muslims. Hence the problem with the Juan Williams termination. Was he terminated for honestly having conflicted feelings, feelings shared by many, or was he terminated because he shared those feelings? It is my view that unless people can openly talk through issues, those issues can never be resolved. Also, in my view another one of those issues is the irrational response liberals have to Fox News. Williams was in the lions den, so to speak, and he held his own he made a difference. More liberals should take this approach rather than doing what they do.

If true, why does Obama single out Fox News and other conservative outlets. If liberals are above the conflict why do they over-react? Why doe some members in Congress want to restrict conservatives on radio or as they would say offer balance? Seems to me they are trying to put up a good fight.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

I don't think it is possible for a journalist or anyone else to ignore their personal biases and be truly objective. Do you?

I have listened to NPR and they clearly have a left bias, they are not objective. what standards are we really talking about?

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

I gave what I thought. I illustrated the pattern I see. I gave the conclusion I drew from the information available to me. If you disagree, or have a different point of view, share it.

Like imagination is a bad thing???The ability to see what is not clearly evident has often served me well, try it. It does take courage to share with others what you can see but others can not. It will subject you to ridicule, but I must say, when the image becomes clear to everyone and you where the first to see it - it is a good feeling.

Who knew Williams did work for NPR? Who cared? However, him being on Fox News was meaningful.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

And now perhaps tax payers will get their say and end any public funding.

you assume that "taxpayers" agree with you, ace.
i pay taxes.
there's lots and lots of people like me who pay taxes and support npr.
i would wager alot more like me than there are people like you who work through conservative talking points.


for those talking points to make any sense, the idea that williams was fired for being conservative has to hold.
but that is fucking lunacy.
he was a conservative on npr.

he was fired for being a bonehead.
but apparently conservatives think they're entitled to be boneheads, to say bonehead things.
if there's pressure not to be a bonehead, conservatives are oppressed.

that's the argument you're effectively making, ace.

it's really kinda funny.

They do it - Obama especially - because Fox News is an easy target that even Republicans and Conservatives will view with disdain. They overreact - when they do - because it's an easy way to be less ambiguously in the right, to get more people on your side. Make a bigger issue of the issues on which a greater number of people will concur. You'll get more good press out of attacking Fox News than, say, attacking something less known or more respectable.

It needn't be fear at all. Opportunism is enough reason.

No one is pretending that he can't have ulterior motives. Everyone has ulterior motives. The thing is that we don't really have any evidence either way. Your issue is that you assume that I'm being naive for not insinuating something for which I have no evidence. I admit it, I think that it is unlikely that Soros views contributions to the Harlem Children's Zone as a viable means of waging war on Fox News. That doesn't make me naive. It makes me sane and rational. What power does the Harlem Children's Zone have over Fox News?

Furthermore, if Soros were attempting to buy off poor people (as you seem to be insinuating that he is, or at least that he might be, you don't know, but you know that he could so it's obviously worth mentioning as though it's plausible), the fact that he contributes to a limited-scope child educational program in New York would be one of the least efficient ways of doing so. So your "I'm not sayin', but I'm just sayin'" accusatory nonsense doesn't even make sense.

I pay taxes and I support a free press. One where they need to back up their statements with actual, provable facts. Not opinion polls of selected groups, what certain politicians think is wrong without explaining what their solution is and how it would be better, and what the talking heads they pay way too much think.

Anyway, I would be more worried about having to sit next to these people on the plane...


http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/728...0A760B0D811297

http://www.aswetravel.com/wp-content...y_airplane.jpg

http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/de...a7b94fc874.jpg

http://media.englishrussia.com/habit...gangsta/13.jpg

Are you making the point that they don't need any government funding? If people support it, what is the big deal?

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

I noticed you used the word "more" above, why?

Williams did not give a ranking nor did he quantify his amount of worry. Are you actually different than he is on this point?

so wait....now finding fox news contemptible is another example of how the big bad Other victimizes conservatives? that's hilarious.

this following on a spirited defense of ones god-given right to be stupid from the ultra-right punditocracy.

this conservo-tempest just gets better and better. hopefully there's a kind of maximum velocity of stupid that it'll achieve such that the right eats itself before the midterms.

and no, ace. that's not even close to what i was arguing.

private ownership should be eliminated from broadcasting.
the airwaves (and cable-waves) are a public good.
information is fundamental to a democracy.
information relay is too important to be left to the likes of rupert murdoch or roger ailes.
private capital is the blight at the center of the american media apparatus.

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.

And the tu quoque rages on.

It's funny because wanting to rid Congress of Muslims has virtually nothing to do with wanting a black man as President.

Tu quoque (pronounced /tjuːˈkwoʊkwɛ/ [1]), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3]

Post #58.

I think our President is liberal. I think Obama, as a liberal, holds the most powerful office in the world.

For example, I want a choice to eat whatever kind of fatty, sugery, salty, foods I want, there are liberals in some major cities like NY where some people, I would call them liberals, want to restrict my right.


Talk to Obama and the people who cheer him on. Obama has singled out Fox News, conservative talk radio, specific commentators as an enemy of the liberal agenda.

There are the bitter clingers to guns and religion, perhaps they are not the enemy, but just to stupid to understand.

And, now there is the Chamber of Commerce, you know the balding, potbellied, il fitted suit wearing, middle-aged business men with a liking of rubbery chicken lunches, who are going to end democracy as we know it in cooperation with anonymous foreign donors.

Just to try to elaborate on the importance of the points I have been making, think about what lead us to the Iraq war.

I feared Saddam was a threat and would use WMD on innocent people. Many others shared my fear, including Bush. Over and over Bush communicated this fear in clear plain language. Anti-war liberals ignored this, to the point of when Bush asked Congress for authorization to use military force - they did not believe he would actually use it. They were surprised and shocked, or at least that is what they said. So, it seems to me that you think I am a sucker for saying we need to openly and honestly deal with fear. If that is how you define a sucker, I am guilty as charged and I am proud to be one.

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

My preference would be that racism end. I have not suffered the way my father has but I have paid a price for my race. My 13 year old son is becoming of an age when many in the world will fear him simply because of his age and skin color. Why on earth you think I would want to normalize racism is beyond belief, especially if you read what I write.

I talk and write about my fears and biases because I seek to become a better person. I engage the liberal point of view to try to get a better understanding. What I do, works, what I suggest about open and honest communication, works. but the first step is for people to be willing to acknowledge their fears and biases. Do you have any?

rb- I hate standing between the swords, but will do so in order to close our circle. I completely agree with you. This guy is a significant national figure in the Tea Party, like it or not. The best thing his group could do is demand he publically apologize AND remove him from his position. If they don't, it will look bad on their group and will give evidence to the fact that his Tea Party group does not value the freedom of religion baked into our Constitution. There's no way of denying that, any reasonable person can see it.

If you spent any time with the group I was in, I believe you would find them massively different than those at the national level. Sadly, the national level has been hijacked. The group I was in passed a collection plate as a means of getting enough money for printer cartridges to print news letters. It certainly had NO financial backing from the Kochs. It also spent a significant time at each meeting emphasizing that we needed to stay on message - which is dedicated to fiscal responsibility. The group is going strong, I just don't attend anymore. Again, I'm more focused on getting "my own house" in order.

Bullshit. I am a Republican and I have actively participated in activities and functions with thousands of Republicans, including people active in the Tea Party. The number of racist, and other "ists" is no different than in liberal circles. If you have evidence to support your claim, share it.

---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

Many fears are irrational, and I still don't know what the liberal solution is, so how do you propose dealing with a person who has an irrational fear of Muslims?

ace, given that i don't find anything at all interesting in your "argument" above, i'm not going to waste my time responding to it. if you work your way through what Tu quoque means, you'll understand the basis for not finding your claim worth my bother to refute.

one of the main figures in the tea party nation posted something on the weekend that argued keith ellison should be defeated because he's muslim and "muslims don't belong in congress."

that's a fact.
it is not interesting to me whether you like it.
it really isn't.

ace, you are talking about Democrats. You don't know what a liberal is.

I imagine the way to deal with Islamophobia should be similar to the way we deal with antisemitism or other forms of xenophobia.

---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

Yeah, even Glenn Beck has taken to calling the Democrats "progressives" instead of "liberals." And most should consider Democrats moderates or centrists more so than liberals. "Liberal" has become somewhat of an epithet, but it's often misdirected.

However, 22% of the electorate does identify as a liberal (44% as moderate, 34% as conservative).

Wikipedia has an interesting entry on this:
Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It suggests that the "liberal wing" of the party is somewhat diminished.

Curious... I would agree that most Democrats are not classic liberals. I still consider myself an old-school liberal (gasp). My grandparents were liberals and would not recognize today's Democratic party as home to classic liberalism. "We" tend to identify closer with much (not completely) of the current Libertarian ideology where "liberty" and "liberal" have not been co-opted by the social progressives. What does liberalism mean to you and how would you describe the collective ideology of the current Dem party?

otto, most people today consider the term liberal to mean the social liberalism of today. Classic liberalism is a different creature, which is why it's considered "classic."

Classic liberalism is mostly about the individual, whereas social liberalism considers the role of the state as important.

To me, the Democratic party is mostly centrist or Third Way. Bill Clinton marked a shift for the Dems.

the democratic party still operates largely in the image of the very very centrist democratic leadership conference, of which clinton was a good representative. him and dick morris were able to drive the republicans a bit crazy with their strategy of triangulation, which was about co-opting republican issues. to deal with it, the republicans started shifting hard to the right ideologically, even as the organizational basis for that shift was in place as a result of ralph reed et al's use of the christian coalition as the basis for a republican political machine amongst social conservatives in the old democratic party mode.

in my more pragmatic modes, i'm closest to a social-democracy and can tell you that the democratic party has no resemblance to social democratic politics. you can see it by the way things are going now---they're not thinking in fiscal terms, they're still playing along with the right, whose policies created the crisis we're in to begin with.

a single-party state with two right wings.

there's no correlate of old-school democratic party social liberalism of the new-deal/post new-deal variety at this point. doesn't mean there couldn't or shouldn't be, but the fact that basically everyone's still a neo-liberal despite the travesty neo-liberalism is should tell you something.

if by classical liberal, you mean you find something compelling about ricardo and mill and other quaint musty volumes of 19th century political economy, then i guess that's nice.

that shit's been materially irrelevant for over a century at this point, but i suppose it's ok to find it appealing much in the way it's ok to like hobbits or elves.


=======


o yeah. have a look at this naacp report from last week about the tea party as providing a platform for racism:

http://teapartynationalism.com/

it's interesting reading.
it's always better to know what you're interacting with. things are not always what they appear from the "people i know at local meetings"---hell, the people i know from the tea party around here are lots of different things. a few of them are racists. alot more of them think along lines that normalize racism. and that's a line like what ace has been working here.

he'd have us believe that it's sensible to be racist.
but every racist thinks that.

Perhaps not.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------


Have those issues been dealt with?

---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

Is Obama a "social liberal"?

---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

Relative to what?

I think it's rather more like "being dealt with." There are people who deal with these things. But they have a lot stacked against them.

I'm not sure how useful this questions is. For starters, I don't know Obama's politics on the individual level. I suppose I could look to his record as a senator. Even then, I'm not that steeped in American politics to know the significance of a senator's actions and whether he or she is acting as a liberal vs. a centrist.

Obama is the president, but he's also a member of the Democratic Party. It's my understanding that he needs the support of enough of his party to get things done. This is politics.

It's also my understanding that the Democratic Party as a whole comes across as largely centrist, or Third Way.

The upcoming election isn't about whether "the left" will lose out to the Republicans. It's a question of whether we'll see the erosion of the centre. This might spur the Democrats to adopt a more obvious Third Way tack like Clinton did when he lost the House to the Republicans midway through his first term after a failed attempt at passing health care reform. Sound familiar?

Clinton seemed to be more effective once he started co-opting Republican issues. Yay, centrism!

I think roachboy means this relative to the actual left. Social democrats, for example.

I don't think any of these issues are being effectively dealt with, and my observation of the posts responding to me here is that there is a preference to pretend problems like this are no longer real. That it is better to shun and ridicule people when they have the courage to openly and honestly attempt to handle fears that they know are irrational. When a person like Williams talks about his fear and talks about how it is irrational - to me he is closer to the solution than those who would want to pretend the fears are not real.

Can you give an example of a known liberal?

Even on this question, if I don't know what I am talking about I am open to being educated. However, I am accused of not knowing what I am talking about in very cryptic ways.

Again, I use the example of DADT, Obama can get this done. Most Americans would support eliminating this policy, his party supports eliminating this policy, what is centrist about him not getting it done?

Generally, there is no center. There is no compromise on the big questions of the day. We fight in Afghanistan or we don't. We use debt to stimulate economic growth or we don't. We have DADT or we don't. We believe the private sector through tax cuts does better creating jobs or we think the government is. We support the right to own guns or we don't.


Perhaps, he can expand on this - it is not clear to me.

This "Compromise is defeat" and "Obama must fail" bull shit from the right is what is what is wrong. There are new ideas and other things we can do in order to make progress.

Afghanistan - troop surge, build relationships, eliminate bad people, provide security and let people live in peace for a while, then build up local security forces, make sure a peaceful, tolerant Islam is taught, setup businesses, and work towards getting our troops out, but leaving behind 'cleaners'.

Debt spending - expose how debt spending works and all of the accounting tricks used by lots of past administrations to hide the true cost of projects or pass the costs on. It would have been better if the government would have had to get individual people to put up some money in T-bonds or something similar. It would have been better to focus on who would benefit if the banks were bailed out, and made sure the citizens got their money back. And there needed to be rules to prevent something like this from happening again. Yet, something had to get done.

DADT - could be Don't Ask, Don't Care. Gay soldiers don't need to flaunt it, and I don't most of them would. And girl soldiers would probably start saying that they are lesbian to stop the guys from hitting on them.

Tax cuts - they need to get paid for, and there needs to be more studies that actually show that they work as advertised. I think they make to peaks and valleys of the business cycle higher and lower. People spend the money, yet then in a few years they don't need to buy as much and the economy comes back down. Or people put them in the stock market, offshore accounts, or just save it. But, I agree that the government has to innovate in order to create jobs (which it does by funding research and development to create private sector companies)

Guns - I have no problem with people having guns. I have a problem with some of their attitudes. If you are making terroristic statements, I have no problem with the feds taking your guns away. If you are mentally unbalanced because you lost your job or went through a breakup, you shouldn't have access to your guns for a while.

Environment - We are putting lots of crap into the air (Hg, Pb, small particles). Yes, other countries are still putting just as much pollutants into the air as we are, but we have the technology to reduce the amount of energy we use, generate cleaner energy, and not take shortcuts to get cheap energy (PA ground water - nat gas, deep water - oil). And there is less on-going maintenance needed for renewable generation.

Abortion - Women should have access to birth control and be taught about it in 6th grade. It should be somewhat hard to get one (and I don't believe anyone uses that as their primary BC method), yet, they should be allowed to have it.

Social Security - it shouldn't be the only source of income, but it should provide the basics. The money shouldn't be allowed to be used for other projects.

I want to see them come up with solutions that both sides can live with.

The media doesn't give any time to people in 'the center'. They are having a rally next weekend in DC though.

Nice^

There are organizations and initiatives that deal with these issues. Their effectiveness is based on their reach and ability to maintain a consistent and persistent message. Unfortunately, ignorance and hatred are like weeds.

I don't think Williams was "effectively dealing with the problem" so much as airing his dirty laundry.

I don't know American politics well enough to centre on individual politicians to any depth; however, I believe that Ted Kennedy is a prime example. I would imagine that most Democrats could be considered more centrist compared to Kennedy, or, if you will, "less liberal."

What's centrist about it is not taking a stronger stand on it, and not making LGBT issues in general (i.e. gay marriage) a more central issue. From what I've seen, the Democrats have taken a rather moderate, if not disappointing, stance on these issues.

You have mistaken centrism as requiring that all issues be left/right issues, that all situations be black and white, that all politicians be in agreement one way or another on all issues in perfect alignment. It's not the case. The varying degrees of agreement/disagreement is why the centre exists in the first place.

Look at it this way: those on the left generally look at centrist politics as either having gone too far or not having gone far enough.

In America, to say there is no centre ignores the profound compromises the Democrats have made to appease moderates and the right over the past two decades.

gee, ace, it looks like these tea party geniuses are trying the same line you tried in justifying williams' bigotry by claiming that it's reasonable to be a bigot:

Tea party's Judson Phillips defends essay attacking congressman for being Muslim

Your assumption is that we can do things like "eliminate bad people", I don't hold the same assumptions nor do I think it is possible. Written many time before foreign powers can not, will not win a war in Afghanistan. We will not/Can not change the culture in that nation. So we either have to occupy the country and continually impose our will or leave.

Business cycles are normal, government need not take special measures to manage business cycles, however when government creates problems in the market often the solutions are even worse. When Wall St. sees gridlock in Washington the good times will start to roll again.

Just end this policy, and let's move on. Obama is the commander-in-chief, he needs to lead and the military will follow.

Or, the government can spend less. But, tax cuts in a high tax rate environment like the one we have now will lead to increased economic activity and more, not less tax dollars going into the treasury.

We agree, but others don't. Some want to outlaw guns entirely. I have no problem with restrictions, just like I have no problem with restrictions on motor vehicle ownership and use.

We must protect the environment, no one disagrees. We have made great strides over the years and we will continue to do so. There is no need for panic, no need for abrupt changes that could ruin our living standards. An "all of the above" approach with continued incremental changes will get us to where we need to be.

I think a viable fetus be allowed to live.

The system is broken and needs to be fixed. I want the choice to control my social security, I want to be able to opt out. You should have whatever choice makes you comfortable.

Is this the rally meant to make jokes and fun of the people on the right? And then next year they will wonder why no one will work with them. Did you hear Obama's comment to a group of Hispanics about punishing their enemies. Who was he talking about?

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

You can not simply create an organization and pass a law - what I suggest are measures to address the underlying issues. As I see it, open and honest dialog is the most important step.

I can understand you seeing it that way - but that is not the point. The issue is how he sees it, why he sees it that way, and how we can help him see it different. Shunning him, making fun of him, ridicule, comments on his mental state, professionalism is not helpful and actually makes some irrational fears become more entrenched.

The moderate stance is "nothingness" on an issue like this.

I see marriage as a religious issue, I see civil unions as a government issue. Government should not favor marriage nor should government deny adults from a civil union relationship. I am more Libertarian than Republican on this question - but not middle of the road. I am not sure what the "centrist" view is, do you?

I see issues in black and white, figuratively - I admit it, I am different than many, I was born the way I am. From my point of view I am not mistaken, so what is next in order to move the dialog forward?

That is black and white, they think centrists are wrong. Those on the right think they are wrong. Centrist think those on both the right and the left are wrong. Perhaps it is red, green, blue - rather than black and white. But either way there are clear distinctions.

If by compromise you mean they don't get it right, then I agree. For example heath-care in this country- the plan was to just get something passed and then fix it. That is not a good plan in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

I will keep trying.

Many people do not understand Islam. What many know about the religion has come from religious extremists who have declared a holy war against western civilization. With increased understanding of the religion will come increased tolerance and a reduction of irrational fear.

So, the question is - how do we increase the understanding of the religion? We have to allow people to say what they think, only then can we begin to address the underlying issues. The approach of calling people bigots, etc. should not be the first response. There is no doubt that at the end of the day we will find some are simply going to be bigots - but I think that number will be very small. In the mean time we have a large portion of our population that simply does not understand Islam.

ace---so one should not call racists racists because you'll bum out the racists?