WTF, NPR fired Juan

Anyone who not only admits to ethnic profiling, but then defends it as OK, ought to be fired from any workplace. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Except that is not what he said.

BTW, from my perspective, the worst part of this whole kerfuffle, is that Juan is going to be on Fox more and I'll end up hearing more of his Liberal drivel.

Except that is not what he said.

BTW, from my perspective, the worst part of this whole kerfuffle, is that Juan is going to be on Fox more and I'll end up hearing more of his Liberal drivel. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Kerfuffle--Great word.

Now that I've read what he said, he should have been fired. Here's Glenn Greenwald with the details. Anyone who not only admits to ethnic profiling, but then defends it as OK, ought to be fired from any workplace.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ams/index.html

The real question for those defending this scumbag's remarks is why should bigotry be allowed in any workplace? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Stop the over reaction. The man was being honest and not trying to denigrate anyone. A scum bag? Please. Liberals need a dose of their own 'supposed' tolerance. They've become PC extremist goons.

Except that is not what he said.

. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agreed, I do not understand how anyone can say that what he said was anything close to biogtry. Especially if you read/heard the entire text.

My God , we men on this board profile all the time on ladies we would like to fuc. I sure as hell do not blame someone doing it when it comes to their safety.

I'll end up hearing more of his Liberal drivel. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Good, might help you to be more 'Fair and Balanced''!

Good, might help you to be more 'Fair and Balanced''!


Originally Posted by WTF

I said I would hear it. I didn't say I would pay any attention to it.

Except that is not what he said.

BTW, from my perspective, the worst part of this whole kerfuffle, is that Juan is going to be on Fox more and I'll end up hearing more of his Liberal drivel. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Actually, that is exactly what he did. Read this paragraph from Greenwald's piece.

Williams began by telling O'Reilly that he was "right" in his view on Muslims. I don't think there's anything wrong with candidly admitting that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims on airplanes -- even though those feelings reflect some highly distorted thoughts -- as we all have irrational reactions to various situations. But Williams was not condemning his own reaction; to the contrary, he went on to justify it by saying that people who wear "Muslim garb" are "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims," and that "the war with Muslims" (quoting Faisal Shahzad) is one of those "facts we can't get away from." All of those comments were prefaced with the standard defense of bigotry: "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." What "reality" are we supposedly all afraid to address? The full context makes clear that he is not only agreeing with O'Reilly's perspective on Muslims and Terrorism, but defending the linkage between the two.

Another columnist pointed out exactly the same thing:

The problem is that it's clear from the context that Williams wasn't merely confessing his own personal fears, he was reassuring O'Reilly that he was right to see all Muslims as potential terrorists. This is how he prefaced his remarks:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

The thing is, the idea that one should be afraid of anyone who "looks Muslim" isn't reality, it's silliness. He wasn't speaking some brave truth or making a personal confession, he was suggesting there's nothing wrong with looking at Muslims that way.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...have_been.html

See also: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co.../quote-10.html and

All Muslims are not a potential threat but for safety reason it is wise to treat them as such after 9/11, until otherwise proven. Especially in certain situations like being on a airplane. From that larger context he is perfectly correct.
It is not rational to be scared of flying if you look at the stats and realize that you are more likely to die in a car on the way to the airport but that does not mean we should not be able to discuss this irrational thought process, throw in a Muslim on the plane and one fears ramps up by another.
Racial profiling is perfectly acceptable in certain instances, when the FBI was looking for KKK folks who had attacked and killed blacks it would have been a complete waste of time for them to infiltrate a NAACP meeting. A guy walking around with a sheet over his head is identifying himself in a certain way. Even though he may have had nothing to do with lynching , to think you are immune from the reality of 9/11 seems head (or in this case turban! LOL) in the sand from my POV.

The problem is that it's clear from the context that Williams wasn't merely confessing his own personal fears, he was reassuring O'Reilly that he was right to see all Muslims as potential terrorists. This is how he prefaced his remarks:

The thing is, the idea that one should be afraid of anyone who "looks Muslim" isn't reality, it's silliness. He wasn't speaking some brave truth or making a personal confession, he was suggesting there's nothing wrong with looking at Muslims that way.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually, that is exactly what he did. Read this paragraph from Greenwald's piece.

Williams began by telling O'Reilly that he was "right" in his view on Muslims. I don't think there's anything wrong with candidly admitting that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims on airplanes -- even though those feelings reflect some highly distorted thoughts -- as we all have irrational reactions to various situations. But Williams was not condemning his own reaction; to the contrary, he went on to justify it by saying that people who wear "Muslim garb" are "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims," and that "the war with Muslims" (quoting Faisal Shahzad) is one of those "facts we can't get away from." All of those comments were prefaced with the standard defense of bigotry: "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." What "reality" are we supposedly all afraid to address? The full context makes clear that he is not only agreeing with O'Reilly's perspective on Muslims and Terrorism, but defending the linkage between the two.

Another columnist pointed out exactly the same thing:

The problem is that it's clear from the context that Williams wasn't merely confessing his own personal fears, he was reassuring O'Reilly that he was right to see all Muslims as potential terrorists. This is how he prefaced his remarks:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

The thing is, the idea that one should be afraid of anyone who "looks Muslim" isn't reality, it's silliness. He wasn't speaking some brave truth or making a personal confession, he was suggesting there's nothing wrong with looking at Muslims that way.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...have_been.html

See also: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co.../quote-10.html and Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Why in the world would you find it necessary to go to liberal websites to read what a commentator said that Williams said when you could go to Yahoo or probably Fox News website and listen to the whole discussion for yourself. I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me at all.

BTW - I agree with all who said it wasn't any more than the type of personal bias we all share to some degree or another and he shouldn't have been fired for saying it. I also agree with those who opined that the liberal establishment are a bunch of PC asses.

I heard the entire interview and can't believe he was fired. What I find amazing is TTH, et.al. who are saying he should be fired. What happened to the first amendment.

Freedom of Speech has always been a bedrock of this society. It sadens me to believe that anyone has devolved into a tyrancal group of pollitcally correct nazi's spewing hatred about anyone who dares speak openly. This incident shows the true bias the progressive media outlets promulgate. I've never been a Juan Williams fan, but you progressives have truly shown how intollerant you are and I will welcome Juan into the growing fold of conservatism.

I heard the entire interview and can't believe he was fired. What I find amazing is TTH, et.al. who are saying he should be fired. What happened to the first amendment.

Freedom of Speech has always been a bedrock of this society. It sadens me to believe that anyone has devolved into a tyrancal group of pollitcally correct nazi's spewing hatred about anyone who dares speak openly. This incident shows the true bias the progressive media outlets promulgate. I've never been a Juan Williams fan, but you progressives have truly shown how intollerant you are and I will welcome Juan into the growing fold of conservatism. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Tush & his ilk only believe in freedom of speech when they are speaking

I heard the entire interview and can't believe he was fired. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I know it's strange but here i agree with DFW5Traveler.

But Octavia Nasr was fired from CNN for a similar issue with political correctness. Ahh, well now they have Spitzer.

Oh , I believe that NPR can hire and fire however they please as do most of you right-wing folks on here crying about his firing. So let's get over that nonsense.

I would just like NPR to be honest. They are so prideful in their unbiased reporting that they can not see how biased they are.


You have to have conversation with your opponents. NPR should be glad that Juan was willing to walk into the Lion's Den. Conservatives have great ideals just as liberals do. We need both sides to sit down and rationally discuss things. Not be in fear that you have to toe the party line or exiled. NPR is being just as hard headed as the Tea Party folks they make fun of. The only thing is most liberals are smart enough to see what hypocrites NPR is being, Tea Party folks think being called a hypocrite is a compliment! Teasippers ain't got much to work with but bless their hearts they mean well!

I heard the entire interview and can't believe he was fired. What I find amazing is TTH, et.al. who are saying he should be fired. What happened to the first amendment.

Freedom of Speech has always been a bedrock of this society. It sadens me to believe that anyone has devolved into a tyrancal group of pollitcally correct nazi's spewing hatred about anyone who dares speak openly. This incident shows the true bias the progressive media outlets promulgate. I've never been a Juan Williams fan, but you progressives have truly shown how intollerant you are and I will welcome Juan into the growing fold of conservatism. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Juan Williams is a better liberal foil than Alan Combes ever was. O'Reilly has already had him guest host 'The Factor' and promised that he will now guess host it more. Eventually he'll move more to center like Dennis Miller did.

The two fall outs of this is people can say 'Muslim Terrorists' again and that George Soros confirmed himself as the funder of the liberal media.

Actually, that is exactly what he did. Read this paragraph from Greenwald's piece.

Williams began by telling O'Reilly that he was "right" in his view on Muslims. I don't think there's anything wrong with candidly admitting that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims on airplanes -- even though those feelings reflect some highly distorted thoughts -- as we all have irrational reactions to various situations. But Williams was not condemning his own reaction; to the contrary, he went on to justify it by saying that people who wear "Muslim garb" are "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims," and that "the war with Muslims" (quoting Faisal Shahzad) is one of those "facts we can't get away from." All of those comments were prefaced with the standard defense of bigotry: "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." What "reality" are we supposedly all afraid to address? The full context makes clear that he is not only agreeing with O'Reilly's perspective on Muslims and Terrorism, but defending the linkage between the two.

Another columnist pointed out exactly the same thing:

The problem is that it's clear from the context that Williams wasn't merely confessing his own personal fears, he was reassuring O'Reilly that he was right to see all Muslims as potential terrorists. This is how he prefaced his remarks:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

The thing is, the idea that one should be afraid of anyone who "looks Muslim" isn't reality, it's silliness. He wasn't speaking some brave truth or making a personal confession, he was suggesting there's nothing wrong with looking at Muslims that way.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...have_been.html

See also: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co.../quote-10.html and Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Interesting that you just post liberal bloggers opinion as to what he said instead of going back and listing to him yourself. Isn't that hearsay counselor?

Oh , I believe that NPR can hire and fire however they please as do most of you right-wing folks on here crying about his firing. So let's get over that nonsense.

I would just like NPR to be honest. They are so prideful in their unbiased reporting that they can not see how biased they are. Originally Posted by WTF

Word! Oh and also not be funding this shit with tax money.