IN THE COMMENTS: Madison Man asks what Juan Williams thinks of this. The answer is here:
Williams said yesterday he was "stunned" by NPR's decision. "It makes no sense to me. President Bush has never given an interview in which he focused on race. . . . I was stunned by the decision to turn their backs on him and to turn their backs on me."Jane says:
The comments at the linked site were unbelievably racist and demeaning. Evidently, Juan Williams is not so much a man as he is a black man and African-American. He is not allowed to hold (only a few) different opinions than the hard Left, lest he be an "Uncle Tom," a "House Negro," and I stopped reading the race-based insults after that.The linked website is Crooks and Liars. Let's read the comments Jane won't read:
Williams is the Clarence Thomas of NPR, a sell out who lives for the favors of White Conservatives by legitimizing their positions by uncritically restating their talking points. Even the White House knows he’s a gutless suck up.
Why the hell would it be a surprise to anyone, why Bush insisted on Juan, to interview? It is very clear to black America why he would want a safe negro to speak to him about black issues, especially in today’s climate. Juan is not going to make that segment of white America uncomfortable as 90% of black America of today would not mind doing for them and nor would he want to raise up and slap the hate out of them so I would say that Juan is a safe bet for the Bush bigots of today.
Juan Williams is the newest of Bushit’s Field Negroes.
पोस्ट्स
२८३ टिप्पण्या:
283 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Why is it sad that NPR won't play along with the White House Spin Machine? If the press (especially those lame "journalists" who cover the White House) were more adversarial towards the Executive Branch, maybe things around the world would be better.
I'm talking specifically about Juan Williams.
I didn't vote for the press.
Well, who's treating him poorly? NPR for not allowing the White House's stunt? Or the White House for thinking it could get away with it?
I wonder what Juan Williams thinks of all of this. I don't suppose we'll hear his opinion on it -- unless he wants to be job-shopping.
The comments at the linked site were unbelievably racist and demeaning. Evidently, Juan Williams is not so much a man as he is a black man and African-American. He is not allowed to hold (only a few) different opinions than the hard Left, lest he be an "Uncle Tom," a "House Negro," and I stopped reading the race-based insults after that.
Well, who's treating him poorly?
Oh, I don't know, the tired old Uncle Tom slurs come to mind.
Someone needs to set ol' Bill Cosby and Juan Williams down and given them a good talking to, that's what! Maybe Jane Hamsher can put on her best blackface and use. lots. of. periods. to. explain. how. black. people. must. talk.
The comments on that piece were deplorable.
I find them to be fine examples of not paying attention to the message and of knee jerk reactions to someone they (the left) disagree with.
How terribly far we have come from Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream". It appears the color of Juan Williams skin means he can't think for himself or come to any conclusions other than those a black man is supposed to have.
If you don't like the man's positions, fine. Argue against the positions. But don't denegrate his positions solely on the way you think he should be thinking as a black man.
Maybe, since the Left has made Swift Boating into a verb, we on the Right should using Uncle Tommed to refer to a black man that doesn't toe the Lefty line and gets faulted for it.
Gosh!! It's a case of shoot the messenger before he gets the message.
And the commenters quoted can't even get their insults correct. It wasn't the field negroes that were looked down upon by their own race, it was the house negroes, usually the lightest-skinned of them, thus with the best chance of "passing" for white.
The meaner, the dumber.
Lordy Ann, I don't think you'd want C&L to post your comments front and center of their blog, would you? Like say Cedarford? Didn't you just scold someone for making a racist comment on your own blog? What amazing depth you have - it's commentors on a liberal blog's fault for the WH being so afraid on who does an interview with them.
Moderate!
"NPR for not allowing the White House's stunt? Or the White House for thinking it could get away with it?"
Wow - there's some uncommonly insightful thinking - that, axiomatically, this is nothing more than a White House stunt.
And, regarding "If the press (especially those lame "journalists" who cover the White House) were more adversarial towards the Executive Branch, maybe things around the world would be better" you have to allow, out of intellectual honesty recognizing institutional media bias, things around the world could be much worse.
Unless, of course, you're deluded enough to think the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have a remote understanding of how things really work.
The real story here, of course, is the reflexive outrage directed toward a Black man who is not dependably ideological enough for the Left. “Tolerance,” for the Left, is, in the end, just a weapon cynically deployed against the rest of us understanding it as a virtue. Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” would applaud the Left’s verbal dexterity.
What the hell are you talking about? The C&L post is only offensive if you think everyone should like Juan Williams and want NPR to accede to the WH's request to have him do the interview.
As for finding objectionable stuff in the comments section, that's the pinnacle of "lameness," to use your favorite term. You really want to be held accountable for everything Fritz or Sloan or some of your other Freeper-types write here?
Isn't it grand - white lefties telling an African American journalist how to think and behave in order to be a considered a bona fide black man in America.
The left believes in diversity, so long as people of all different races, genders, religions and backgrounds think and speak exactly the way white leftists deem best.
Juan Williams, an excellent reporter by the way, is being screwed by the left and also by the toadies at NPR.
Isn't it interesting that Williams appears on Brit Hume's panel on Fox News five days weekly, where he is allowed to express freely his opinions? Try to find "fair and balanced" anywhere in leftist media. It doesn't exist.
Black Racists are the largest impediment to Black social and economic progress in this country today.
Doyle baby, one game up with 3 to go. Oh and the Yankee's are in. Hee
Hee.
I find the specifically racist comments in that thread disgusting, just as I do when I see the same type of leftist commenters spewing misogynist language about someone like Condi Rice. Doyle's right, though; I read as bad here from cedarford, fritz and a few others nearly every day. To be fair, I see conservative commenters here bemoaning that cedarford hasn't been banned. It's the nature of comments sections that there will be nasty stuff that glorifies the worst of our instincts.
There's another issue involved, and so far as that goes, I don't blame NPR for declining an interview under the conditions of Bush picking the interviewer.
Actually four to go. Also it shapes up to be a one game playoff. Can Jose pull a Bucky Dent. Watch and learn.
I'm confused about Juan Williams. He is a Black Hispanic born in Panama. I imagine he knows how to pronounce his first name, but nobody else seems to.
"Juan" is pronounced either "Huan" or "Joo-an."
Williams is anything but "Wan."
We could use a lot more Spanish sensitivity in this country. Amerikans can't even pronounce "Las Vegas" correctly, for chrissake.
Now let's all just put on our yoga toes for a few minutes and calm down.
Soon we'll all feel tingly good, and we can talk about this in a nicer way.
Thank you.
Excuse me, we can't continue until all of you are paying attention, and that means you, Jason, and you, too, Beverly.
Everyone will have to wait for Jason and Beverly before we can put on our yoga toes....
"Black Racists are the largest impediment to Black social and economic progress in this country today."
I'd have used the term "race-baiters" instead of racists, myself. Nonetheless, it's going to be an ugly day in America when African-Americans fully realize the biggest, best pieces of the Democrat Pander Pie are being handed out to Hispanics, and they got nothing but family and community destroying welfare policies fostering nothing but dependency.
All the C&L post said was that it is a good thing that NPR was not going to let the White House choose Juan Williams to interview Bush. That's it. You don't even have to dislike Juan Williams as a reporter to agree, if you just agree with the general proposition that the White House shouldn't be able to choose interviewers for itself.
The fact is Juan Williams is NOT likely to be an especially aggressive, adversarial interviewer. A good indication of this is that the White House wants him to do it.
Personally I think Juan Williams could be a lot worse, and he's smacked down Kristol on more than one occasion (for which he is often lauded on C&L). But he's generally more sympathetic to the Bush/Kristol/Satan side of the debate than would be ideal for the job.
The C&L post is only offensive if you think everyone should like Juan Williams and want NPR to accede to the WH's request to have him do the interview.
I agree that the post itself is not offensive. But the discussion here is not about the post itself but the comments following the post and many are extremely offensive, would you not agree? It is even more offensive when one considers that those writing those comments claim liberal credentials. As well, it seems to me that those writing of "House Negro" or "Field Negro" were using a supposedly less demeaning code for another term including an infamous n-word.
I don't think the post itself is a problem. I disagree with it but it is a relatively reasoned argument as C&L posts go. It's the comments that are telling. Mel Gibson tried (and basically failed) to counter charges of anti-Semitism by saying it was the booze talking. Is anonymous blog commenting a more legitimate defense?
Yeah congrats, Trooper. Really a marvel of a team there. It's amazing that with no one in the lineup but A-Rod, Abreu, Giambi, Matsui, Jeter, Damon, Posada, and a bunch of nobodies, they somehow managed to pull together and win the wild card. Inspiring stuff.
I just hope for your sake they lose quickly so you all can get back to what you do best: bitch about how your best player isn't clutch like Jeter.
I'm sure that the commentors would immediately claim that they were just being "ironically humorous" and "weren't meant to be taken seriously", as though reprehensible behavior is excused by the fact that you didn't really mean it.
I agree with you, Beth, but then all of the networks and the White House (whoever is in it) play this game. "We'd like a 1-on-1 interview with the President." "Who's doing the interview?" "Brian Williams" "Fine OK." I'm not endorsing the White House's right to pre-select their interviewers but CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, FOX and NPR do this all the time and NPR pretending they don't is BS.
The point is who cares what anonymous blog commenters say!
Are there liberals who go to C&L and accuse Juan Williams of being a "house negro" for being insufficiently anti-Bush? Of course! But how many? Ten? Twenty? If one of them is really bad, does that count for more?
You could go to any blog with unmoderated comments and wail "Is that any way to treat _____."
It's called "nutpicking," and it's incredibly stupid.
Doyle: C&L provides the comments section. They are as responsible for the content as the one who said it. If they don't want to be responsible, then they can turn off the comments.
Hey Doyle, you forget to complain about how much money the Yankee's spend. If you guy's lose, will you demand that we go to the Florida Supreme Court to ask for a recount. You could only wish you had someone as clutch as Jeter on your team. But hey, lets see what happens. I just want to see you in the series. So we can beat your ass. Again.
Well good then, I look forward to T-Bogg or Thers or somebody presenting a smattering of some of the garbage that gets posted here. Of course they wouldn't do that because no one cares, and Ann provides plenty of fodder herself.
It's a bit more than "nutpicking", really. It's a clear indication of audience that C&L is appealing to; and it's not a good one. The author is free, as Ann sometimes does here, to interject in comment or a post update, to put distance between the poster and the comments.
But hey, if we're determined to avoid blog comments as any sort of barometer of racial sensitivity, then we can always turn to the crap slung about Juan Williams on CNN.
Syracuse University professor and blogger Boyce Watkins: "Juan Williams sitting there, is sort of the 'Happy Negro' agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, doesn't impress me at all."
What's the big deal here? So the President doesn't want to face a hostile interviewer. Is that surprising? Why would he voluntarily do something like that, especially if there's an alternative (a less hostile interviewer).
The President isn't required to talk to NPR (or any media outlet). NPR isn't required to interview the President (this one or any other). So there's going to be some negotiation. If they can't reach a mutually beneficial agreement, there is no interview. If NPR wants the interview bad enough, they'll send Juan Williams. If the White House wants the interview bad enough, they'll talk to whoever NPR sends.
This seems pretty obvious to me. Why is the Left acting like the President has an obligation to talk to whoever NPR wants? Why is the right acting like NPR is out of line for wanting to choose the interviewer?
As far as the comments go, each individual is responsible for their own comments. Google owns Blogger, which host thousands (millions?) of blogs. Are they responsible for each and every blog post hosted by their service?
It's a bit more than "nutpicking", really.
No, it's not. Unless there's something wrong with the post itself, it is the very definition of nutpicking. Even if that definition is only a month or so old.
Why is the Left acting like the President has an obligation to talk to whoever NPR wants?
They're not. The president is acting like NPR has an obligation to assign whomever Bush wants. The Left is just glad they disagree.
Well good then, I look forward to T-Bogg or Thers or somebody presenting a smattering of some of the garbage that gets posted here.
Well, if they did (and posted a link) they would see that there are several people arguing the opposite point. I don't see anybody over there disputing the party line.
Bah, I thought I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt about the spelling of "nitpicking" :) Thanks for the link, that's pretty cool.
As is usually the case with loonies on the far left and right, they miss the point.
Anyone who sat in on one day of American History class or happened to have any shred of knowledge as to the way journalism is "supposed" to work would know that the press was loosely deemed a 4th branch of government during the writing of our constitution. It was also designed to be another set of checks and balances on the executive branch.
What that means for all you Juan-a-loonies and Bushlovers is that the press gets to decide who will be interviewed and who will be conducting the interview--not the White House.
Of course the White House wants someone sympathetic (and they get it all the time thanks to Condi's "guys" at Fox), but it's not their call.
So sorry Ann, the White House doesn't get to choose, and this doesn't make the blog commenters on either side of the spectrum any more right or wrong or crazy because it's not about them, nor is it about Juan Williams. It's about an out of control administration seeking to frame every last piece of information that oozes out of it during these lame duck days.
Juan Williams, NPR, and people that post comments on blogs are all just collateral damage.
The comments by Ann, Jane, etc. are typical of the skewed bullshit you can find here every day.
NPR is more concerned with the White House selecting exactly who they want to conduct the interview. They've done this before with Cheney, so they can "control" the content, and NPR feels it is not the way things work...just as other networks would feel, too.
Here's NPR's side of the story:
Ellen Weiss, NPR’s vice president for news, said she “felt strongly” that “the White House shouldn’t be selecting the person.” She said NPR told Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, that “we’re grateful for the opportunity to talk to the president but we wanted to determine who did the interview.” When the White House said the offer could not be transferred to one of NPR’s program hosts, Weiss took a pass.
Does anybody tell Fox News who can or cannot conduct an interview??
Juan Williams is pretty much a suck-up, too.
The White House are rank amateurs at controlling media access and limiting exposure to hostile interviewers compared to Hillary.
Here's the Crooks & Liars entire posting. Unless there's a link to other people's comments...where is the racist, "Uncle Tom" quotes??
Bush cherry picks Juan Williams for an interview and NPR refuses
By: John Amato @ 6:50 PM - PDT
Very nice…There’s a big reason why Bush chose Williams for an interview instead of who NPR wanted. Cheney used this technique for Meet the Press and made Russert look like a fool. It’s called ” Controlling the Message!”
Ellen Weiss, NPR’s vice president for news, said she “felt strongly” that “the White House shouldn’t be selecting the person.” She said NPR told Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, that “we’re grateful for the opportunity to talk to the president but we wanted to determine who did the interview.” When the White House said the offer could not be transferred to one of NPR’s program hosts, Weiss took a pass.
Notice in the Kurtz piece he never talks about Williams being O’Reilly’s chief apologist, but rather prints only his opinions that would seem to make him a good choice for the interview.
Here’s Williams comparing David Letterman to John Wayne Gacy, the clown killer, because he called BillO out and said “I have the feeling that about 60 percent of what you say is crap”. I wish Juan stood up all the time like he does against Kristol on FNS.
Dan Froomkin has his opinion and it’s a good one.
How much control should the White House have over who gets to interview President Bush? Specifically, should Bush be able to dictate which journalists at which outlets he talks to?—-
Given how meticulously the White House picks and grooms Bush’s audiences to avoid any unpleasantness, it should come as no surprise that the press office is very careful about who gets to interview Bush.—
Somewhat tellingly, Williams served as Bill O’Reilly’s sympathetic foil during the Fox News anchor’s bizarre quasi-racist rant last week about his visit to a black restaurant and his observation that, to his apparent surprise, the patrons weren’t running around screaming like addled rappers.
Would other news organizations allow the White House to determine who on their staffs would be allowed to interview the president? Would any responsible newspaper accept such conditions? I hardly think so.
Come back any time, ZPS!
But don't think you can distract Ann with this business about any kind of check on Executive power. She's not trying to hear it. If someone else interviews Bush, the terrorists have won.
That's why she's talking specifically about Juan Williams, and the mean things people say about him.
Well I guess Juan is a likely white house pick for softballs now that Jeff Ganon is not in the press pool
This has zero to do with race. Nada. This has to do with ethics. NPR has highly favorable ratings for the honesty of their reporting. You can look it up.
To have a reporter/interviewer selected for them reflects so badly on Bush and his team as to make them look foolish.
Luckyoldson: Try again. Althouse makes it clear in her post that the comments are COMMENTS, not the C&L top post.
halojones-fan,
I know what Ann said...and I appreciate you defending the "Queen," but...
...exactly what can anybody do to control what somebody "comments" on at any site??
This thread is full of right wing bullshit, critical of NPR...not the people who commented...and you know it, too.
Doyle,
Juan Williams lost ALL credibility when he became the butt-boy for the Fox News round table discussion with Barnes, Hume, etc.
He's no different than Hannity's sidekick suck-up.
Doyle & Beth an example please.
Luckyoldson: You can turn the comments off. Or you can use approval-before-posting; or you can disallow anonymous commentors (and ban offensive ones.) There are ways to moderate discussions. Simply saying "it's too haaaaaaaard" isn't an excuse.
Althouse,
Isn't it time you sent the Luckyoldson packing?
"What's everyone blaming me for? Blame Felix. I wouldn't have hit into
the double-plays if he hadn't hit singles."
-Joe Torre of the Mets after tying a major league record by hitting into four double-plays, each time after Felix Millan had singled just before Torre came to the plate (July 21, 1975).
The progressives never change their behavior. They're always tossing out charges of racism because, Y'know, they love the black man.
But when *progressives* call a black man "house N****r", or "Uncle Tom" - then its different.
In that case, they'll say *anything* except condemn the leftist for using racist comments.
LOS: “The comments by Ann, Jane, etc. are typical of the skewed bullshit you can find here every day.”
LOL: This isn’t a far Left site, and there’ll be a range of opinions and attitudes posted here on any given day. Ann tolerates the range, to include my disagreeing with her politically most of the time.
She, I and others here do agree, however, that for allegedly Tolerant, anti-Bigotry leftists to engage in racist, sexist and gay-baiting insult (which LOS has managed to do a couple of times already in this thread) is a bit too precious.
Oh, I see Rcocean beat me to it. He's right, LOS wrong and left.
There are a few pieces of interest here in this Althouse post.
There is the matter between Bush and NPR, with Williams stuck in the middle.
Then there is the disgusting and vile rhetoric being spewed at Juan Williams by so-called progressives.
The former is of little interest to me. If Democrats can choose to avoid Fox News altogether because they view it as biased, then why wouldn't Bush be allowed to avoid NPR for the same reason? And why wouldn't he be allowed to make an exception for someone he has decided he trusts?
The latter is only of interest to me in so far as the progressives who are on here don't seem to find it worth even commenting about, even though that is as much of a topic of this post as the matter between Bush and NPR is.
I really think I am going to sit this election out (possibly with the exception of voting for Giuliani should he get the nomination). The Republicans don't deserve my vote, and the more I look at who gets empowered when we vote Democrats, the more I see people that should be nowhere near power.
What a sad state of affairs our nation's politics have become.
"That's why I don't talk. Because I talk too much."
-Joquin Andujar
jane
I could care less what you think about anything.
You're just another wingnut who sees only what you want to see.
Anybody who's listened to NPR for any period of time knows that Juan Williams was a top notch reporter with NPR, but for whatever reason (MONEY), sold out to Fox News.
The point of the Crooks & Liars posting is that the White House feels it can select whoever it want to conduct interviews and that is not the case...at least with NPR.
Making this into some kind of "racist" sidebar because of the "comments" on another site is just plain bullshit.
Yes, in the event of a Democratic victory, I hear that Some Guy Who Called Juan Williams an Uncle Tom is going to be on the short list for Secretary of State.
He'll be so empowered, it's scary.
paul a'barge,
Instead of whining to the Queen, why not address the points made?
Gutless weasel.
LOS, you're still wrong and Left. You have missed Ann's point entirely, because your mind is a terrible waste.
"Sometimes they write what I say and not what I mean."
-Baseball player Pedro Guerrero, on sportswriters
Ann's point, if I understand it correctly, is: "Look at those nasty liberals saying mean things about Juan Williams in the comments section at C&L!"
She's a formidable law blogger, I realize, but I think I can get my head around this idea.
Of course, the point for Ann is not how much control the White House should have over who interviews Bush, but whether accusations of racial treason are leveled against Juan Williams by some commenters on a liberal blog.
Frankly, I don't think calling Williams a sellout or an Uncle Tom is ipso facto beyond the pale.
I am surprised that persons here can' see the forest because the tree is in the way.
This is a red meat setup. Now Bush and his talking point faxed up buddies can proclaim, as Rush just did, that NPR snubbed the president and "although taxpayers foot the bill, they won't let the President of the US present his poiint of view".
hello? this is so obvious. For the life of me I can't figure out some of you some days. Bush has called for a 25% cut in the CPB funding for 2008. Now he can point to this as typical of the NPR/CPB anti-americanism. just you watch.
all this for what it costs in Iraq for 6hours and 27 minutes of killing.
"Left hand, right hand, it doesn't matter. I'm amphibious."
-Charles Shackleford of the NCSU basketball team
Open question to the democrat commenters here:
Do you also approve of the Democrats who refused to participate in the debate on Fox News?
Doyle,
Why don't you be the point man in charge of telling Ann what her point should be for any given story or on any given topic? That way she/ we won't stray too much from your righteously correct POV.
Frankly, I don't think calling Williams a sellout or an Uncle Tom is ipso facto beyond the pale.
what a revelation
knox,
What in the world does a Presidential candidate refusing to take part in a debate...with any network...have to do with the White House selecting an interviewer for our President?
Why don't you be the point man in charge of telling Ann what her point should be for any given story or on any given topic?
I couldn't do much worse.
what a revelation
Just sayin'. You could make the argument, based solely on his shameful obliviousness to Hurricane Katrina, that George Bush doesn't care about black people. He was, after all, raised by a woman who said: "This is an improvement for most of them."
So, to the extent that a person sees Juan Williams as being a tool of the Bush administration, that person might accuse him of doing a disservice to his own kind.
But again, I'm just sayin'.
jane said..."LOS, you're still wrong and Left. You have missed Ann's point entirely, because your mind is a terrible waste."
I didn't "miss" anything.
And...Doyle has it right: "Ann's point, if I understand it correctly, is: "Look at those nasty liberals saying mean things about Juan Williams in the comments section at C&L!"
She's a formidable law blogger, I realize, but I think I can get my head around this idea."
Let me get this straight. NPR hires Williams; in addition asks him to improve NPR relations with the White House. In January Williams scores NPR's first Bush interview. The White house offers Williams another interview and now an editor with BDS plays games. This is a slap in the face of Williams, he should resign from NPR. I would not be surprised that they didn't want Williams doing the interview because he doesn't buy the black victimology trope.
They are both trying to get their message out. You think the president should not be able to get his message out as he sees it (he can't get it out any other way because of the bias of the media). I think he should be able to explain it as he sees it and he would not be able to do that with the biased media commentators who would keep interrupting and misunderstanding what he is saying (and they would) or cherrypicking what they think he is saying (which they also do, as do you and the other LLL dems here - the Iraq war is about more then WMD as the president said in his speech but you would never know it from the media).
I applaud Bush and Juan Williams on this one for sure.
BTW who appointed the media as a fourth leg of government and what is your source that the media has that power.
All this obfuscates a deep truth:
What this president says isn't really newsworthy anymore. He's a lame duck and deeply unpopular, and his own Secretary of State has been having trouble getting on the talk show circuit because she's just repeating talking points:
link.
(Scroll down for the article. And here's another, on Rice's declining influence both in the media and within the White House.)
That televised presidential speech a few weeks ago had the same problem - its just the same plablum repeated over and over.
The story I get from the left is that NPR didn't want another soft-ball interview like they got earlier with the president. Take that for what it is, but spare me the outrage over some blog comments on another blog.
DU
What in the world does a Presidential candidate refusing to take part in a debate...with any network...have to do with the White House selecting an interviewer for our President?
The effort by all politicians to control the message, of course. I don't think the two circumstances are much different at all: Bush doesn't want to be questioned by a network perceived to be tough on him; the democratic candidates did exactly the same thing by refusing to appear on Fox.
These are people who want to be president. Shouldn't they also be willing to open themselves up to challenging questions?
The Mets have shown me more ways to lose than I even knew existed.
(Casey Stengel)
So, to the extent that a person sees Juan Williams as being a tool of the Bush administration, that person might accuse him of doing a disservice to his own kind.
A tool of the Bush administration??
It's gross to think all black people should behave like a giant borg, but obviously you guys don't, and you believe it's reasonable to use racial slurs against anyone blacks who don't. Again, I'm not surprised you think it's ok. That comments section shows that a lot of people--white liberals that is-- obviously approve of it and enjoy it. Bravo!
The Dems get challenging questions from reporters who work for actual news organizations.
Fox is not that. Fox's mission is not to inform viewers but to make them think highly of Republicans and poorly of Democrats, misinforming them if necessary (Mark Foley, D-FL). It's government propaganda of the kind Pravda could be proud of. It's just not worth it for Democrats to lend credibility to the idea that FNC is anything else.
And I don't think Bush should be required to give NPR an interview. I just don't think NPR should let Bush decide who he wants to do the interviewing.
If the Mets can win the World Series, the United States can get out of Vietnam.
(Tom Seaver)
Yes I think my comments here reflect my strong commitment to forming a giant borg of black people. It is to eat chicken, enjoy the comedy stylings of Tyler Perry, and disapprove of the Bush administration.
Until that day...
Fritz said..."Let me get this straight. NPR hires Williams; in addition asks him to improve NPR relations with the White House. In January Williams scores NPR's first Bush interview."
You don't have it "straight."
Juan Williams has worked on and off, for NPR for years, and most certainly wasn't hired to "improve" anything.
Oh, and "he" didn't "score" the interview.
The White House demanded "he" be the interviewer.
NPR refused to buckle under.
Period.
Trooper,
Running low on meds again?
Talk to Jane...she's got plenty.
Knoxwirld,
This doesn't have to be one of those black-white issues. Russert was a tool of the White House when he let Cheney explain to us on how the insurgents were in "their last throes". Being a tool of this White House can be one of your future "colorblind society" examples.
"Anyone who sat in on one day of American History class or happened to have any shred of knowledge as to the way journalism is "supposed" to work would know that the press was loosely deemed a 4th branch of government during the writing of our constitution. It was also designed to be another set of checks and balances on the executive branch."
Nonsense. The press was never deemed a 4th branch, loosely or otherwise. Nor was it designed to be a set of checks and balances on the executive branch. Absolute nonsense. Freedom of speech and a free press are considered inalienable rights, and were considered far to important to be managed, or restricted by any form of government. It comes with a responsibility, but not a requirment to report the truth.
"So, to the extent that a person sees Juan Williams as being a tool of the Bush administration, that person might accuse him of doing a disservice to his own kind."
And his own kind would be what? Men? Adults? Educated? American? Or do you fall on the old standby, black? Where do you think his primary allegiance lies over all others no matter what? Do you think this is the way it should be for everyone? How would you reconcile a white gay guy? Should he be loyal to whites first? Or gays?
I have the same malice in my heart as far as the fight game is concerned, but outside the ring, I won't say anything a dignified man won't say.
(Mike Tyson)
All this does, is prove once again that the left harbors a pent up racist and bigoted streak that they cloak around their particular brand of tolerance (intolerance perhaps?). This is nothing new and this isn't the beginning, much less the end. A big thanks goes out to the left to show us again, how they really operate.
LOS, you're obsessed with meds and gays. The subtext would be intriguing, if it weren't really boring.
There are actual dysfunctional people out there on meds and illegal drugs. Are you dissing the mentally/ emotionally handicapped, as yet another example of humane, empathetic, tolerant Leftism? Or, are you like me- a little tired of psychiatrists, psychotropics and weed for the spoiled, self-described brilliant angsty?
Yes I think my comments here reflect my strong commitment to forming a giant borg of black people.
This is a chickenshit response. If a black person doesn't behave the way YOU think they should, you think it's kosher to call them a house slave or an uncle tom. You admitted it, and you know it looks bad. Go ahead and make a joke of it if you want.
Why should any one -- left or right -- put up with the Government telling the press how to operate? I can't think of anything more fundamentally unAmerican at its core.
As for mean comments on another blog, why go looking for umbrage?
Nurse Ratched: If Mr. McMurphy doesn't want to take his medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don't think that he would like it.
[McMurphy turns around to see Harding smiling at him]
McMurphy: Heh, YOU'D like it, wouldn't you?
[to Ratchet, regarding the pills]
McMurphy: Here, give it to me.
(One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
(Luckyoldson's house?)
I can't think of anything more fundamentally unAmerican at its core.
What about indefinite imprisonment by executive fiat? Bush is into that, too.
Methadras said..."All this does, is prove once again that the left harbors a pent up racist and bigoted streak that they cloak around their particular brand of tolerance (intolerance perhaps?)."
The "the left harbors a pent up racist and bigoted streak"????
Based on the comments by people you don't even know...at another site?
What are you talking about??
Yet, but for the grace of God, you remain at large.
It's a mystery.
Did anyone enjoy my commentary last night? I received very few reviews?
I just read through them and thought they were personally hilarious.
I need some feedback. I want to know what I am doing is making an impact on normal every day Americans.
NPR does not believe Juan Williams is an unfair or unserious journalist. They employ him for hard, objective reporting.
Nor does NPR think Juan Williams is a right-winger. Every Sunday Juan is the lone liberal crossing daggers and swords with Brit Hume and Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday.
NPR wanted to sandbag the President with one of its effete French-cheese-nibbling radio-show hosts. That is, someone who is not an authentic journalist. Someone who would slash into the President without any regard for fairness, objectivity, or the facts. Someone named Melissa Block.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2100245
jane says:"LOS, you're obsessed with meds and gays."
Gays??? What do gays have to do with Juan Williams and the White House...other than future interviews with Gannon, Foley, Craig, etc.?
As for meds, I have to assume, based on your inane, nonsensical, right wing comments, that you're on some kind of mind-altering medication.
One of the most pathetic things about the increasingly absurd and noxious phenomenon called "netroots progressives" is how unbelievably white they are. The Republican party is more ethnically diverse than the left blogosphere, and the left knows it and is embarrassed by it. But, without a single whiff of irony, they go off on Juan Williams, who is in no way a conservative journalist. It smacks to me of overcompensation for their own apparent racial exclusivity.
The other strange misconception here is that interview subjects normally don't pick their interviewers. On the contrary. It's done all the time. By presidents, governors, mayors, city councilmembers, CEOs, entertainers... it's extremely common.
NPRs response to Williams' initiative was ridiculous posturing. The whiteroots' response is contemptible.
If a black person doesn't behave the way YOU think they should, you think it's kosher to call them a house slave or an uncle tom. You admitted it, and you know it looks bad.
Obviously that's not what I wrote or what I admitted. I just said that not every accusation of selling out or Uncle Tommery or whatever you want to call is beyond the pale.
To spell it out for you, I don't object in principle to people of color or any minority attempting to enforce "party discipline." I don't think gay rights groups should be restricted from criticizing gay lawmakers who vote against gay rights. Nor do I think black people should be prohibited from criticizing black media figures for being too pro-Bush.
Some people say if black people can do it (like, say, use the n-word), so should white people, but I don't actually subscribe to that.
"Why should any one -- left or right -- put up with the Government telling the press how to operate?"
They shouldn't. Where did such an attempt occur? The White House offered an interview with Juan Williams. NPR declined. William's, not being overjoyed in losing the interview AND feeling insulted by what he sees as NPR's implied insult to him, complained.
That is a far cry from the White House commanding NPR to air said interview. The WH threw out its offer, it was declined. End of story.
John Stodder said...
"The Republican party is more ethnically diverse than the left blogosphere"
oh my.
Mortimer Brezny said..."NPR wanted to sandbag the President with one of its effete French-cheese-nibbling radio-show hosts. That is, someone who is not an authentic journalist. Someone who would slash into the President without any regard for fairness, objectivity, or the facts. Someone named Melissa Block."
At this stage of the game, 7 years into he Bush reign of terror...how could anybody possibly "sandbag" the President?
Good God...are you implying that George W. Bush would come into an interview...unprepared?
The whiteroots' response is contemptible.
Is there anything funnier than the Willie Horton, Welfare Queen, Trent Lott, "Thanks Mr. Smiley but we're all busy" Republicans getting on their high horse about race relations?
[Answer: no]
Doyle Wrote: "his own kind" The ugly slip of leftist racism.
Lucky,
Why not read the stories before you comment on them.
"I had worked at NPR's direction to develop a relationship with the White House," he said. "I have an expertise on race relations. . . . I thought the listeners of NPR lost a tremendous opportunity to hear the president in a rare interview on a very important subject."
Williams called his bosses, who "EXPRESSED CONCERN" that the only interview Bush has granted NPR during his tenure was also with Williams, in January.
Some principle, they don't trust Williams. BDS in action.
Sorry, Doyle. I'm not a Republican. Voted for Dukakis. Despise Trent Lott and think he should've resigned. Your "guilt-by-association" method of evading arguments won't work on me. But carry on. You don't get called on it very often, so I don't blame you for resorting to it, lazy as it might be.
As for LOS's 'oh my,' could you name for me the top leftwing bloggers who happen to be anything but white?
I was pretty specific in saying "left blogosphere."
"I just said that not every accusation of selling out or Uncle Tommery or whatever you want to call is beyond the pale. "
Can you give an example then of a case where you think it is appropriate?
Obviously, since you think that not every accusation in that manner is beyond the pale, you surely have a counter-example.
I think it is always beyond the pale, without exception. Maybe you can convince me different, though.
Guilt by association? How's about using a few comments on C&L as the "contemptible" response of the "whiteroots"?
I guess I just have to beg your forgiveness for mistaking you for a wingnut, ya know, just based on your crazy rantings.
That might have worked, except that you have just associated yourself with them by saying you don't think comments like that are defacto beyond the pale.
Obviously, since you think that not every accusation in that manner is beyond the pale, you surely have a counter-example.
Judas Iscariot.
Ipso facto, but whatever. And no I didn't condone those comments w/r/t Juan Williams.
"Willie Horton"
Are you still pissed at Al Gore for bringing up the furlough program? It's been almost 20 years. Let it go.
It's funny. Juan Williams is pretty solidly on the left on most issues, including the war and entitlement reform, et al., and he hasn't been quiet about it to my recollection.
However he, like Bill Cosby, doesn't buy the trope that the state of the African American community in the United States is entirely the fault and responsibility of white elite or the government. As such, and because this is an issue about which he cares deeply, he's neither an uncritical partisan, nor an uncritical fan of the self-proclaimed leaders of that community.
It is this interest that gives him some sympathy for Bush. He recognizes that Bush has significant, if sometimes misguided interest, in making an actually difference to the American and global black experience:
1. Promoting African Americans to the top levels of government
2. No Child Left Behind
3. Unprecedented funding for AIDS treatment and prevention in Africa
4. Active engagement with Africa to push for better government and promote real progress
stodder: "As for LOS's 'oh my,' could you name for me the top leftwing bloggers who happen to be anything but white?"
Say what??
Clever but lame attempt. But I fail to see how Judas would be an example of an "Uncle Tom." A betrayer, certainly. A betrayer of his own race? No, that is a poor attempt.
Give an example where calling a black man an Uncle Tom isn't beyond the pale, please.
Years ago, I thought that Williams was almost conservative. But I have watched him for years take the liberal position on those talking heads debates. So, while he may not be as hard on the President as someone with severe BDS might, he is still not anywhere near being conservative.
As for the comments about Fox, I find it humorous that they are accused of being biased by those here who will not admit the biases of the other networks. Yet, there are studies out there that would show them to be significantly more centrist than CNN, CBS, NYT, etc. by, for example how often liberal and conservative think tanks are cited. I would suggest that to be more objective than mere gut feelings. Fox was almost neutral, whereas most of the rest of the MSM was running 80/20 citing, for example, Brookings versus Heritage.
Finally, the thing that isn't mentioned is that NPR still gets federal funding. Yet, some of its stuff is more slanted than almost any of the other media. I am not surprised that they turned down a softball interview with the President, though they do such with the Democrats running for president all the time, as well as leading Democratic politicans. I can't remember any hardball NPR interviews of any national politician on the left, but have heard plenty of softball ones.
So, if it weren't for the federal funding, NPR would not be any different than the Democrats refusing Fox interviews, debate, etc. But they do get federal funding, and they do show significant bias by limiting their hardball interviews to those on the right, and in particular here, the President.
Ipso facto may have been appropriate as well, but I meant defacto.
SuckyOldson: Good God...are you implying that George W. Bush would come into an interview...unprepared?
How do you prepare for questions like, "Aren't you the worst President ever because of your daily prayers to Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, and did you err in listening to Lucifer when you attempted to fix Social Security?"
Sorry, LOS, I meant hdhouse.
You guys all look alike. (JOKE!!!)
Black culture is something I don't relate to much at all.
(Dennis Rodman)
fritz:
Juan wasn't sent to the White House by NPR. His comments were in response to the following:
"Perino said she called Williams with the offer Saturday because of the Little Rock anniversary and the racial controversy over charges of excessive prosecution in Jena, La."
He was "invited" by Perino...NPR said that is was their responsibility to select who would conduct such an interview.
Mortimer Brezny said..."How do you prepare for questions like, "Aren't you the worst President ever because of your daily prayers to Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, and did you err in listening to Lucifer when you attempted to fix Social Security?" (DUH)
Juan Williams and NPR are too professional to ask such a ridiculous question.
*Also...see Jane and Trooper for meds. You're running...LOW.
John Stodder
I see that the fact that you actually have 20+ years of experience in this field and know how these are normally done has been ignored or completely discounted. NPR certainly chose an interesting time to get religion on this subject - you and I both know they are not nearly as pure as they pretend to be.
When the White House calls Jim Lehrer or Brian Williams and asks if he wants an interview, I doubt PBS or NBC says, "No! We'll send someone else of our choosing."
McMurphy: What are you doin' here? You oughta be out in a convertible bird-doggin' chicks and bangin' beaver
(One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
If the White House had called up and said they'd do an interview with Tavis Smiley, Richard Rodriguez, or Bill Moyers, NPR would gladly have obliged. This is all about getting back at Juan Williams for his most recent book.
John Stodder wrote:
One of the most pathetic things about the increasingly absurd and noxious phenomenon called "netroots progressives" is how unbelievably white they are. The Republican party is more ethnically diverse than the left blogosphere, and the left knows it and is embarrassed by it.
Since I don't consider myself part of "the left," I can't claim to know what "the left knows" and whether or not they are "embarrassed." John, would you mind explaining the source of your knowledge about "the left" and how it thinks? Surely you must have fairly substantial polling data to support your conclusions.
Also, while you're at it, will you please provide some data to support your contention concerning the ethnic diversity of the "netroots progressives?" While I suspect you can find some data on the ethnicity of the GOP to show that it's hard to find a whiter bunch, I can't imagine that there is any data whatsoever on the ethnicity of "netroots progressives." I'm anxious to see the evidence on which you base this claim.
But, without a single whiff of irony, they go off on Juan Williams, who is in no way a conservative journalist. It smacks to me of overcompensation for their own apparent racial exclusivity.
As far as I can tell, there's no factual basis for these claims. John, usually you do a much better job of making assertions that have some connection to reality. Admittedly this is a really dumb thread, but you needn't contribute to the stupidity of it.
Being white makes you pathetic, now?
Not that I claim to be able to read John Stodder's mind but he could have been referring to things such as the turnout to Yearly Kos which apparently was pretty white. Fair or not, that is the impression given when looking at the pictures.
Emma Peel: You know my wavelength.
John Steed: I do indeed.
(The Avengers)
Hi Bruce Hayden....you wrote:
"Yet, there are studies out there that would show them to be significantly more centrist than CNN, CBS, NYT, etc. by, for example how often liberal and conservative think tanks are cited."
LOL Brent Bozell perhaps? thanks for interjecting a bit of humor on a grey day.
"It's basically the same, just darker."
(Alan Kulwicki, stock car racer, on racing Saturday nights as opposed to Sunday afternoons, 1991)
hdhouse- are you really going to argue that Fox is less centrist than CNN, CBS, NYT? Really?
would you mind explaining the source of your knowledge about "the left" and how it thinks?
I didn't say "the left." I said "the left blogosphere," a sub-species that doesn't entirely overlap with the traditional left. And I know how they think because they can't contain themselves, they write many long posts on many sites explaining themselves. They also frequently provide photos of themselves. They are an amazingly monochromatic bunch.
What is it you're challenging about the second statement you cite? That the left is "going off on Juan Williams?" Isn't this what we're talking about? Or are you talking about Juan Williams not being a conservative? Well, I've read a lot of his columns, seen him on TV, heard him on radio. In fact, he gave a speech at my brother's college graduation some years back. He didn't say anything to remind me of, say, William F. Buckley or Antonin Scalia. He's not a doctrinaire party man, but my sense is his views are closer to Paul Krugman's than to William Kristol's. Do you know differently?
Or are you talking about my speculation concerning "overcompensation?" Well, okay. That's a somewhat creative leap. But I've been around and involved with liberal politics for a long time. It's a tendency you see a lot. Until the 1996 passage of welfare reform, it was widely assumed by many liberals I knew that without welfare, many black families would starve or be forced to become criminals. I heard it said many times by liberals that we shouldn't harshly judge a black kid who chooses crime over an entry level job, since crime pays more. To some, that was a compassionate insight. To me it was removed from reality and patronizing.
In addition, you'd have to be blind not to recognize that when a black intellectual strays from the liberal line, they get criticized a lot more than when whites espouse the same views. Liberals need conservative whites to prove their ongoing point about the benighted nature of American society. Conservative blacks, however, threaten what is now called "the narrative." When Bill Cosby seemed to point the finger at neglectful black parents for school drop-out rates and related problems in the black community, he was attacked, not because he was wrong, but because he was undermining the explanation that the only obstacle to success for blacks is racism. Given a choice between dealing with reality head-on and supporting "the narrative," too many liberals choose the latter. If that's news to you, I don't know what I can say. The evidence is everywhere.
Liberals need conservative whites to prove their ongoing point about the benighted nature of American society.
Fortunately, they're happy to oblige.
jeff....joseph goebbels speaks!
Without losers, where would the winners be?
(Casey Stengel)
"jeff....joseph goebbels speaks!"
And that means what, exactly?
Internet Ronin said..."When the White House calls Jim Lehrer or Brian Williams and asks if he wants an interview, I doubt PBS or NBC says, "No! We'll send someone else of our choosing."
Again, you miss the entire point: Why should the White House be the one selecting who actually conducts the interview? Do you think if thy called and demanded Jim Lehrer NOT be the one who does so...PBS would agree?
I doubt they would allow the White House to make such a decision.
jeff said..."hdhouse- are you really going to argue that Fox is less centrist than CNN, CBS, NYT? Really?"
So now we're moving into a stand-up comedy routine??
Fox..."centrist"???
Get real.
Trooper,
I see by your profile that you enjoy "drinking."
Is that what's going one here?
Are you with Jane or Maxine?
Speaking of choosing someone to represent a specific issue:
Today the Senate passed the Hate Crimes Bill, or better known as the Matthew Shepard Act.
Larry Craig voted against it.
Now that's what I call a w-i-d-e to the r-i-g-h-t stance.
Jeff,
You mean the Fox News whose viewers voted 88-7 for Bush over Kerry. The Fox News that's run by Roger Ailes, a longtime Republican operative. The Fox News where Alan Colmes works as "the liberal foil". The Fox News that miraculously converted Mark Foley into a Democrat. That centrist Fox News.
Self-importance is our greatest enemy. Think about it - what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellowmen. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone.
(Carlos Castaneda)
"You mean the Fox News whose viewers voted 88-7 for Bush over Kerry. The Fox News that's run by Roger Ailes, a longtime Republican operative. The Fox News where Alan Colmes works as "the liberal foil". The Fox News that miraculously converted Mark Foley into a Democrat. That centrist Fox News."
Compared to CNN, NYT and CBS?
Yes, that's the one I was referring to.
""jeff....joseph goebbels speaks!""
How are we coming in explaining this?
"Today the Senate passed the Hate Crimes Bill, or better known as the Matthew Shepard Act. "
Who was killed for money and drugs and who's killers both received two consecutive life terms in prison each. What else could be done to them under this new bill except to federalize yet another crime even though the local jurisdictions were doing just fine. Glad someone voted against it.
jeff,
Why would you waste time trying to represent Fox News as being centrist?
Or, hey...why not name all of the centrist or left leaning commentators they employ.
And leave out Juan Williams and Alan Colmes.
"Today the Senate passed the Hate Crimes Bill, or better known as the Matthew Shepard Act. "
A bill written by Ted Kennedy et al., people who are, generally speaking, opposed to mandatory sentencing.
So, if the bill is signed into law and Kennedy et al. had their way, judges could ignore the penalties in the legislation.
On some planet that makes sense.
SMG
Lucky, I am not. I am saying that compared to CBS, CNN and NYT it is closer than they are.
John Stodder
What liberals do you look up? Are there any writers, pols, past or present that you can steer us to? I've yet to see you support a liberal/Democratic position here. Not once. Are you sure you're anywhere on the left?
SMGalbraith,
Oh, please.
It was passed by a margin of 60-39 and it addresses "hate crimes" and was introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR).
*According to the FBI, 25 Americans each day are victims of hate crimes–that means approximately one hate crime is committed every hour. One in six hate crimes are motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.
Re drinking, meds, other vulgarities
Hey, LOS(t)/(er),
If med and gay ad hominen constantly works for you, why don’t you tell us why. What and who are you on or would like to be but can’t seem to score?
Althouse,
It's time.
You know you want to. Just do it.
Smoke him. Stuff him. Stick a fork in him. Dump the mutt.
John Stodder wrote:
The evidence is everywhere.
I guess this answers my question in the sense that I didn't imagine that you could in fact produce any supporting evidence.
Although you write that "the evidence is everywhere," you provide nothing that an objective reader would judge to be clear and significant evidence. For example, you made a specific claim that should be verifiable (i.e., "the Republican party is more ethnically diverse than the left blogosphere"). I've asked you to provide the data on which you base this assertion. And although you say "the evidence is everywhere," you produce nothing relevant, nothing that would be considered even remotely persuasive in support of your assertion.
I didn't say "the left."
In fact you DID say "the left." Let me remind you what you wrote:
The Republican party is more ethnically diverse than the left blogosphere, and the left knows it and is embarrassed by it.
This is why I asked you for your source on what "the left knows" and whether or not they are "embarrassed." Perhaps you didn't mean to write what you did, or maybe you misread what I wrote. In either case, the mistake is yours, not mine.
Still, you claim to know the state of mind of "the left" or if we use your correction, "the left blogosphere." How do you claim to know this? For instance, how do you claim to know that "the left" is "embarrassed" by the ethnicity of the "left blogosphere" relative to the GOP? Have you sampled the opinion of everyone you identify with "the left?" Or have you completed a scientifically designed survey of the opinion of those on "the left" from which you can draw valid conclusions? Or better yet, can you direct me to a respected source for polling data that will support your claim?
As I noted before, you usually comment from a reality-based perspective. I hope you return to your pattern of more thoughtful comments in the future.
jane said...
Why not just skip my comments? Are you this dense??
You spend half your day responding to what you call "vulgarities."
(And, as for your inane comments regarding gays...I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The meds...well, that's based on your nonsensical comments.)
paul a'barge,
The same goes for you, chickenshit.
Quit whining to Ann and just skip over what I post. I do it all the time...there's a little arrow on your keybord that points DOWN.
It's easy...a chimp could do it.
You don't like what I say...DON'T READ IT...and please...DON'T RESPOND.
"*According to the FBI, 25 Americans each day are victims of hate crimes–that means approximately one hate crime is committed every hour. One in six hate crimes are motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation."
I think we would probably need to know how a hate crime was defined before this would be relevant. I don't think any is saying that it shouldn't be against the law to beat or kill someone. I just don't understand how killing or beating someone because they are gay is worse than beating or killing me because they want my car. The end result is someone got either beat or killed. Now if you can demonstrate that violence against gay people is ignored, then maybe you have a case. Naming the bill after this poor man who was killed in Wyoming and whose killers both received two life sentences apiece, does not make that case. Federalizing some things just to make us feel good, or make some sort of statement doesn't make any sense.
jeff,
Are you actually trying to tell me you wouldn't know a "hate crime" if you saw it? Or that we shouldn't address the possibility that the primary reason someone is being tortured, beaten, killed, raped, etc...because they're gay or black or Jewish, etc.??
Really?
The bill is based on what happened to Mathew Shepard.
Did you consider his being beaten and barb-wired to a fence and left to die...a "hate crime"...or merely a case of a guy getting beaten to death?
jeff,
Byt the way: When you say: "I just don't understand how killing or beating someone because they are gay is worse than beating or killing me because they want my car."
Well, that tells me you don't understand the premise of the bill.
There's a difference, Jeff...a big difference.
I have to say; I do find it rather ironic that I'm debating Jeff about hate crime legislation (I'm in favor of it)...as Jane accuses me of being anti-gay.
Stunned is, for me, a much to mild a term to describe my reaction to this story. I would have thought that NPR would be less transparent than this. Just who on the NPR staff has more experience and credibility when it comes to the subject of race relations and the civil rights movement than Juan Williams. The man has written a book on the subject and might be presumed to know something about it. No one else on that staff, that I know of, could even come close to his knowledge and involvement in the subject matter for this interview. If the so called "fault" of the WH decision process here is to want to be interviewed on such an important subject on an important anniversary by someone who is intimately aware of the details of that subject, I can't find a good rationale for its description as such. We are all better served when an interviewer has the command of the subject on which they are interviewing. Of all of those on the NPR staff, there is no one that comes close to Juan in this respect. I have been watching Juan for years and the last thing I would claim is that he is deferential to this WH, especially on this subject.
NPR has done a great disservice to their audience in this matter.
The tone and tenor of the highlighted comments that Ann posted are beneath contempt. Doyle took the elevator to the bottom floor with this one:
"Frankly, I don't think calling Williams a sellout or an Uncle Tom is ipso facto beyond the pale."
He isn't the only one. We can do better here, can't we?
Just Sayin.
"Are you actually trying to tell me you wouldn't know a "hate crime" if you saw it? "
No, I am saying I dont know what the FBI calls a hate crime. What consists of those 25/day reports?
"Or that we shouldn't address the possibility that the primary reason someone is being tortured, beaten, killed, raped, etc...because they're gay or black or Jewish, etc.??"
No, I am saying that the kind of person that does this sort of thing, that is already illegal, will not be deterred by it being Super-Illegal especially since the penalty doesn't change. How does this address anything?
"The bill is based on what happened to Mathew Shepard."
The bill is based on what was reported about Mathew Shepard. Other reports are that the two guys wanted money and were on drugs. Either way, they both are server two life sentences. Had they not pleaded out, they more than likely both would have gotten the death penalty. The irony is that I may be in the minority here that would have supported that. How would this law have helped?
"Did you consider his being beaten and barb-wired to a fence and left to die...a "hate crime"...or merely a case of a guy getting beaten to death?"
I would consider it a heinous crime
worthy of the death penalty. How is one "merely" beaten to death?
"Well, that tells me you don't understand the premise of the bill.
There's a difference, Jeff...a big difference."
Then explain the difference to me. I honestly do not see it.
In both cases, someone dies for no good reason, and in both cases if the evidence is there, someone is getting prosecuted. Here in Wichita, we had the case of the Carr brothers. There was a great deal of talk about how that should have been a hate crime. You can read about it to see what exactly they did before killing those 4 people and almost killing the 5th. They were not charged with a hate crime, yet still were convicted and sentenced to death. You can not possibly believe the predators that would do such things would be stopped by a hate crime bill.
What is it that you see such a bill provides?
Cyrus, I apologize, but I'm not going to have time to meet your challenge. So for this round I'll concede, but hope to have an opportunity to address it in the future.
As for whether I ever take a liberal view or stance on anything, I certainly don't expect anyone to pay that much attention to what I have to say, but among my liberal positions, some expressed here, some perhaps not yet:
-- Social liberal. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage, opposed to the religious right's agenda.
-- Environmentalist. While I get annoyed at the argument methods of the environmentalists (No more debating global warming! It's settled!), fundamentally I believe the problem exists, and whether it did or not, I'd be strongly in favor of an aggressive switch away from the oil/coal/gas -based economy toward alternative fuels. In favor of strict regulations to protect public health.
-- Health care. While I'm not enough of an expert in economics to answer all the objections to it, I would tend to support a candidate favoring universal health care guaranteed and/or mandated by the government. I think Hilary's latest position on this issue is encouraging and would help her get my vote.
I actually think of all my views as liberal. The problem is, the left has hijacked liberalism in a number of areas, and I've just stayed true to where I started out. I'm a strong supporter of free speech for example. The left used to be the bulwark of free speech. No longer.
Where I mainly have parted company with liberals is on the war and the whole nest of issues around the jihad, homeland security, etc. Although these positions don't feel very right wing to me, according to others, they are. So be it.
The offshoot of the differences I have with the left on the war is my contempt for the way the left has argued its case and organized politically around it. The lies and blatant political posturing are just too hard to ignore. So, I'll admit, I'm very disaffected from the Democratic Party right now. It's not what it was. Hopefully this is a temporary product of the Bush-derangement syndrome. I yearn for a more collegial political time, and worry that this blue-red bullshit is about to tip into a civil war. My observation is that both sides are approaching their differences with closed minds, but the Democrats are more guilty of this.
Nonetheless, I hope to be able to vote for a Democrat next year. Help me out!
Luckyoldson said:
jane said...
Why not just skip my comments? Are you this dense??
No, I didn't. You're hallucinating, LOS. Find the quote. You can't. But I should've said it.
And then LOS said...
as for your inane comments regarding gays...I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The meds...well, that's based on your nonsensical comments.
LOS: "Juan Williams lost ALL credibility when he became the butt-boy for the Fox News round table...He's no different than Hannity's sidekick suck-up." 10:55 AM
LOS: "Gays??? What do gays have to do with Juan Williams and the White House...other than future interviews with Gannon, Foley, Craig, etc.?" 1:02 PM
lee david,
I agree with much of what you say, but isn't the crux of NPR's argument that they make the decisions regarding WHO conducts the interview?
I've been listening to Williams for years, like most of what he has to say, but I myself find it rather disingenuous for some here to say NPR has to allow him to do the interview...just because the White House wants him.
I don't think any of the major networks, including Fox, would acquiesce to such a demand.
Do you?
I think we would probably need to know how a hate crime was defined before this would be relevant.
It is pretty irrelevant no matter how you define a hate crime, really. Twenty-five crimes a day out of a population of 300 million is nothing. There are around 130 times that many auto thefts, 230 times that many burglaries, 720 times as many thefts. Heck, you're more likely to be murdered than you are to be the victim of a hate crime.
jane,
That was typo.
Of course I never said YOU said to skip over MY comments.
Geeeezzzzz.
And you actually believe the term "suck-up" has something to do with gays? Sorry, Jane...it relates to kissing ass, sucking up to your boss, acquiescing on a regular basis, etc. (Men do it, women do it, all kinds of people do it.)
As for Gannon, Craig and Foley...they are GAY...and if Williams were to interview them...I would have to assume that that fact just might surface. (You think the ongoing controversy with Craig isn't about him being..."gay?")
Revenant said..."Twenty-five crimes a day out of a population of 300 million is nothing."
Are you daft?
It has nothing to do with the number of hate crimes per day...it has to do with WHY the crime is being committed.
The numbers provided by the FBI are obviously way below what's really going on...how many hate crimes are committed every day that aren't reported?
*Just like RAPES...that are NOT reported.
Jeff,
I haven't the foggiest idea why you're so opposed to hate crime legislation, or how it would in any way, shape or form, create problems for anybody accept those who commit the crimes.
And if you think gays, blacks, Jews, etc. don't need additional protection from bigots, racists, etc...so be it.
"It is pretty irrelevant no matter how you define a hate crime, really."
Well, not necessarily. If it was narrowly defined as a murder or aggravated assault in which no one was charged, then federalizing it, while I personally think is on shaky constitutional grounds, makes sense. It would be similar to what was done in the 60's in the deep south. Local law enforcement would just wink at assaults on black people so the feds would haul the suspects in on civil rights violations. Under those circumstances I don't know what choice you have. If the locals have two sets of laws, then the feds have to get involved. If, as I suspect in these cases, most of the hate crimes documented are self reported and consists of someone calling someone a name or yelling at them or committing vandalism which may or may not be due to "hate". And I am unaware of people beaten and killed where local law enforcement refuse to prosecute. If this is the case and someone can document this for me, then I retract my argument. But I don't think it is.
Why shouldn't the White House ask for a specific interviewer?
And why should interviewers necessarily be antagonistic? Maybe, once in a while, they should report on what someone important thinks about various things. *REPORT* rather than agitate.
What *antagonism* as a journalistic virtue gets us is those udder idiots in New Orleans who couldn't even listen to the General explain what he needed the people of New Orleans to *know*. (And yes, I said "udder" on purpose... they behaved like oversized cow-bags.)
Maybe it's part of the *profession* of journalism to convey information. You think?
Or is it the duty of journalism to obscure and redirect and prove their value by their PITA rating and how much they can refuse to be "used" to communicate with the public?
"I haven't the foggiest idea why you're so opposed to hate crime legislation, or how it would in any way, shape or form, create problems for anybody accept those who commit the crimes."
Because you are criminalizing thought. You are taking crimes that are already being prosecuted and wanting to dump them in Federal court. You are imposing more central government control over local issues that are being dealt with by local prosecutors. As I have repeatedly stated, I do not see how this will persuade the type of person that does this sort of thing, to stop. It appears to be another law that says, "I care about this" but does absolutely nothing more to prevent anyone breaking it than what is currently in place.
"And if you think gays, blacks, Jews, etc. don't need additional protection from bigots, racists, etc...so be it."
I have no idea where you are getting that from what I wrote. I do not see how this provides that protection. Simple as that. And I put bigots, racists, etc in the same classification as "just" car jackers, people who torture and kill for monetary reasons, or just because they can or for really no good reason. Lock them all up.
1. Given that NPR uses government funds for their operations, they belong to the people, and thus belong to the government.
If they want to refuse a demand to tell them how to run things, get off the public dole. Otherwise, be a good public entity and do as you are told.
This pretense of being an "independent news source" is laughably dumb. Who pays the piper calls the tune. You want the pay? Don't bitch about the tune.
2. Juan Williams is to the left of Althouse, and therefore quite left of center. He has been stung by this, called an Uncle Tom simply by agreeing to interview the President. He's not the right sort, according to NPR.
I feel another African American about to discover what being out of The Party means. He will either beg forgiveness, and be permitted back into the fold, or he will drift inexorably starboard, and embrace traditional liberalism. John Stodder, one of the best writers I've run across in awhile, may reach the same conclusion himself.
3. LOS: the irritable bowel syndrome of this blog. I advise more fiber, and a good long flush.
jeff said..."Because you are criminalizing thought."
That's not true at all.
Anybody can "think" whatever they want.
They just can't act on that thought by attacking someone.
Pogo, the resident dolt...says:
"Given that NPR uses government funds for their operations, they belong to the people, and thus belong to the government. If they want to refuse a demand to tell them how to run things, get off the public dole. Otherwise, be a good public entity and do as you are told."
Which, if expanded, means the White House can basically tell any publicly funded entity exactly what they can and cannot do.
And you wonder why I think this idiot...is an idiot.
Pogo
Please define "traditional liberalism" for us.
"They just can't act on that thought by attacking someone."
But that's my point. You already can't do that under current law. The new law is precisely written because of thought.
Also, while you're at it, will you please provide some data to support your contention concerning the ethnic diversity of the "netroots progressives?"
The KOS Convention?
Jeff,
Do you favor the death penalty?
Because much like the death penalty, hate crime laws are enacted to dissuade people from committing those crimes...by attaching a heavier penalty if convicted.
Are we making progress...?
Please define "traditional liberalism" for us.
Joe Lieberman.
Zell Miller.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy
garage mahal said..."Pogo
Please define "traditional liberalism" for us."
GFL.
m. simon,
You think Lieberman and Miller are liberals?
You're making a funny...right?
Well, not necessarily. If it was narrowly defined as a murder or aggravated assault in which no one was charged, then federalizing it, while I personally think is on shaky constitutional grounds, makes sense.
The FBI doesn't keep statistics on unreported crimes, so far as I know. Anyway, the statistics are here.
The hate crime total for 2004 included 5 murders and 4 rapes -- around one-twentieth of one percent of the total. The three crimes that accounted for the overwhelming majority (85%) of "hate crimes" were, in decreasing order of frequency, vandalism, intimidation, and simple assault.
So no, there aren't thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of hate-murders in any given year. There are a handful, across a country of hundreds of millions. Not a problem the feds need to get involved in.
Interesting factoid I came across while looking at the FBI statistics -- blacks commit more hate crimes per capita than whites do. There's something you aren't likely to hear Al Sharpton admit any time soon.
While I get annoyed at the argument methods of the environmentalists (No more debating global warming! It's settled!), fundamentally I believe the problem exists,
If it real science doesn't it have to have predictive value?
The hurricane season is not what the climate scientists predicted.
CO2 is rising and global temperatures are falling.
In addition it appears that "Climate scientists" are cooking the books to keep the grant money flowing.
Visit Climate Audit. The shenanigans of the CO2 Climate "scientists" is most amusing, if we weren't asked to place such a big bet on bad data, bad models, and the desire to keep the iron rice bowl full.
"Do you favor the death penalty?"
Yes. But we convict based on the brutality of the crime. The number of victims. The suspects prior history. The Carr brothers I alluded to earlier- I don't give a damn if they did it because they hate white people or because they wanted money. A brutal act is a brutal act and deserves full prosecution.
"Because much like the death penalty, hate crime laws are enacted to dissuade people from committing those crimes...by attaching a heavier penalty if convicted."
This heavier penalty is based on what the person was thinking at the time, which is effectively criminalizing thought. My primary objection though is that it doesn't attach a heavier penalty. Life in prison is life in prison. The death penalty is the death penalty. As I stated some time up the string, if it is the case that, for the sake of argument, killing a gay person does not earn the same penalty as killing a straight person, then you have a point. I have seen nothing so far to demonstrate that. 10 years ago....20 years ago yes. I think a case could be made for this. And it may be the case today, I don't know. But I think if you going to vote a law like this in, you need to demonstrate that case. Using the Matthew Shepard case, those guys pleaded to get their double lifes. In the James Bryd trial of some years ago, two of the three got the death penalty.
"The three crimes that accounted for the overwhelming majority (85%) of "hate crimes" were, in decreasing order of frequency, vandalism, intimidation, and simple assault."
This is what I suspected.
Jeff,
vandalism: as in burning down a house?
intimidation: as in calling someone the n-word or k-word or f-word?
simple assault: as in beating someone up?
Got more?
LOS: "Juan Williams lost ALL credibility when he became the butt-boy for the Fox News round table...He's no different than Hannity's sidekick suck-up." 10:55 AM
Lucky,
For the second time, why don't you splain us what a "butt- boy" is, if it's not a gay derogation?
LuckyOldSon is an anti-gay bigot. I have absolute moral authority with which to make this claim, therefore it cannot be challenged.
I have to go now. Be back later. I see that we are headed for 200+.
"Jeff,
vandalism: as in burning down a house?
intimidation: as in calling someone the n-word or k-word or f-word?
simple assault: as in beating someone up?"
Well, I suspect the first one would be called arson if that was the case,
Who knows about the second two. Which, again is my point.
And two of them are currently against the law already, and the middle one, while distasteful, should never be against the law.
"Got more?"
I think you should more properly be addressing that to the FBI.
1. Traditional liberals: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Keynes
Modern liberals: Kos, Dean, Greenwald, Obama, Edwards, Krugman
2. LOS said, "Which, if expanded, means the White House can basically tell any publicly funded entity exactly what they can and cannot do."
Exactly. The soft fascism of Big Government. See "Britain", for example. The more power the government has, the more it can dictate, prescribe, and proscribe behavior.
If NPR doesn't want to be told what to do, it should stop sucking from the government teat. In my view they are not serving the half of the country that does want to see him and should therefore lose their funding.
Well, I suspect the first one would be called arson if that was the case
Yes, burning down a house is the textbook example of arson. According to the statistics I linked, around one-half of one percent of hate crimes (44 in all) involved arson. Vandalism would be spray-painting a swastika on a Jew's door, or throwing a brick through a black man's window.
Simple assault is an attempt to cause non-serious bodily injury to another person. I.e., punching someone. This is distinguished from aggravated assault, such has took place when the "Jena Six" sent an unconscious kid to the hospital.
Intimidation generally consists of threats of violence or harm. Using a racial slur is not "intimidation", so far as I know, although it may violate laws against fighting words.
Being white makes you pathetic, now?
I'm really trying to understand the "now".
Reverend Johnson: Now I don't have to tell you good folks what's been happening in our beloved little town. Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped. The time has come to act, and act fast. I'm leaving.
(Blazing Sadddles 1974)
Yes, Luckyoldson should be banned. He is the most offensive regular commenter here and should be banned to encourage the others.
Yours,
Wince
Candygram for Mongo, candygram for Mongo.
pogo,
your understanding of "publicly funded entities" is rather daft.
if bush could simply order NPR to assign the interviewer of his choice, he would do so. that he cannot, should be proof enough of your error.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा