Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Conservatives declare war on NPR

Adam Serwer is a staff writer for The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

Matt Welch and William Saletan make a persuasive case that Thinkprogress omitted relevant context from their original post on the statements that got Juan Williams fired from his gig with NPR, but as Greg wrote, there's little evidence that Williams was trying to offer a Shirley Sherrod style teachable moment. As I said yesterday, I don't think he should have been fired either way, because its hard to have an honest conversation about prejudice if you can't admit your own.

For his part, Thinkprogress editor Faiz Shakir told me this morning that he wouldn't have fired Williams, and that the purpose of the original post was to "highlight a comment that was incorrect for a larger audience so that we all can better understand why that comment doesn't help us move in the direction of the kind of society we want to live in."

Since Williams was let go, conservatives have been calling for NPR to be "defunded" over the incident, with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner suggesting a "left wing radio network" shouldn't be receiving public funds. Sarah Palin has returned to her bizarre understanding of the First Amendment, which is that people who share her views have a right to be paid for them. I suspect part of the reason conservatives are upset is that they're not used to seeing a news organization react with such outright panic to transient public outrage from the left the way the media usually reacts to heat from the right. Few on the right thought CNN's hasty decision to let go of Octavia Nasr was a threat to freedom. Williams himself seems to think his own firing is the kind of thing that leads to Soviet-style forced labor camps, which is the kind of reasoning that really is more at home on Fox News.

However poorly NPR handled the Williams incident, the notion that NPR is "left wing" is ridiculous. Williams' presence on the network is emblematic of the network's milquetoast approach to political analysis. The reason Williams was let go wasn't because of the all powerful left, but because NPR is so concerned with the perception of bias that it didn't want one of its analysts associated with a network that works as a staging ground for Republican presidential hopefuls. NPR's commitment to a contrived form of journalistic objectivity may be counterproductive from the point of view of informing its audience, but there's no question that even prior to this incident Williams' appearances on FOX went against NPR's code of ethics, which advises employees to "not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist."

Funds from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting accounts for about 10 percent of NPR member station financing, according to their Web site, so to the extent that anyone believes NPR is trucking along entirely dependent on taxpayer funding, that is incorrect. NPR provides a valuable public service, and shouldn't lose their public funding because Republicans' idea of "fair and balanced" is a network that acts as a 24/7 fundraiser for conservative political candidates and causes. 

By Adam Serwer  | October 22, 2010; 10:57 AM ET
Categories:  Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Harry Reid's closing message: You'd have to be crazy to replace me with Sharron Angle

Comments

Do you mean the NPR folks over in Airstrip One, or the CPB at the Minitrue Building?

Posted by: tao9 | October 22, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

How about they lose their funding because they don't really need it and the economy sucks right now and the government could put that money to better use?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 22, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I'll be doubling my contribution to NPR during our next local fund drive!

Posted by: DinOH | October 22, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

This is hardly news. Conservative have hated NPR for as long as I can remember. There's something about quiet, reflective, long-format reporting that doesn't mix well with the guitar-riff and machine-strafe conservative platitudes of today.

Posted by: klautsack | October 22, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Where is Ted Olson?

Can't he just tell these Tea Party idiots what the First Amendment actually means in real life?

Where are the adults in the Republican Party who will stand up for the original meaning of the First Amendment as it has been understood since its ratification?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Tweety -- I know people on the left tend not to like him -- has been asking the question repeatedly, paraphrased:

If these supposed "Constitutional Conservatives" love the Constitution so much, then why are they trying to change it? They are trying to change the commonly understood meaning of the First Amendment, that we've had for hundreds of years, and literally scrap everything else, with the exception of the 2nd and 10th Amendments.

I'm going to start calling Conservatives:

Anti-Amendmentalists

These Anti-Amendmentalists want to shred the Constitution down to a pamphlet about states' rights where the citizenry are terrified into forming protective provincial militias. That is NOT America. And even if they were somehow successful in destroying the Constitution and reforming it in their vision we would no longer be a superpower, but we would instead become a laughingstock of the developed world.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I've donated $120 to my public radio station after this even though they play way too much of that old European music (aka "classical" music).

Posted by: ga73 | October 22, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Most of us “dimwitted” conservatives understand that NPR is little more than a taxpayer subsidized farce. Consider it affirmative action for media liberals who can’t compete in the “real” world. Soros seems to have gotten his money’s worth.

Posted by: jacksonwneil | October 22, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Don't disagree with you, Adam, but overall, I have to say that 1) Williams' remarks were not isolated, but rather illustrate a pattern that goes back almost 20 years, 2) Williams' remarks did not represent the standards of practice of NPR, and so Williams undermines his employers, and 3) Williams is gonna be just fine without NPR... and NPR will be fine without him. There is a difference between "milquetoast" and "choosing not to insert personal viewpoints" ... and what's more, Williams failed to address the epidemic of hate speech coming from Fox News and thereby failed to stand up for justice for an oppressed group. So, Williams didn't break some rule of journalism. He broke a rule of NPR News. Time for both to part ways.

Posted by: benintn | October 22, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

All this talk of Soros seems to have a hard edge on the right. Is it concern about "Jewish money"? Soros survived a Nazi occupation of Hungary for crying out loud.

Posted by: ga73 | October 22, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Wow, it's almost as if jacksonwneil didn't even bother to read Adam's post...

Posted by: benintn | October 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If Newt Ginrich, O'Rielly, or anyone else who is so outraged said, "you know, I feel nervous sitting next to black people on the bus or the diner counter (airplane or any place else)", what would you be saying about his/her getting fired?

Is it OK as long as it's a Muslim?

How about a mexican?

HOw about an African-American?

How about an Hindu?

How about an Christian Evangelist (God forbid)?

Well, anyone who listens to FOX I feel very uncomfortable around. Please keep them and Tea Party members out of my neighborhood; particularly, that Satin Worshipping witch from Deleware.

Posted by: morenews1 | October 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I seems like FOX News has for this week found another villain to distract its viewers from the real issues plaguing our country. I just donated to my local NPR affiliate for the first time. I appreciate NPR and the fact that in this era dominated by new muckraking journalism - led by FOX News - that I can tune the radio to NPR for real news without pundits and spindoctors driving the story.

Posted by: buffalo67209 | October 22, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"Williams himself seems to think his own firing is the kind of thing that leads to Soviet-style forced labor camps, which is the kind of reasoning that really is more at home on Fox News."

What exactly does it lead to then?

It seems you and Sarah have more in common than you think.

"Sarah Palin has returned to her bizarre understanding of the First Amendment, which is that people who share her views have a right to be paid for them. "

Posted by: couwnt | October 22, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse


The NPR firing of Williams comes a week after George Soros donated $1.8 million to NPR.

Also, this donation is to hire 100 "journalists" to be spread across the US to cover local and state politics. Probably to dig up dirt on conservatives and the Tea Party movement.

And NPR is not left-wing oriented? Surely you jest. I have listened to NPR radio for years and it most certainly is left-wing oriented.

Since NPR receives public funding aren't there Federal statutes which mandate the percentage of minorities, recipients of public funding must employ?

Williams was the only black male employed by NPR. How many minorities does NPR employ at their headquarters?

BTW, Republicans tried to defund NPR in June 2010 but they couldn't find enough votes to defund. Maybe now they'll have better luck.

And at such an austere time in our economy, why should we be funding an organization which touts that the government funding represents only 10% of their donations.

Let Soros ante up the government's 10%, why should taxpayers be on the hook for a handout by NPR?

Posted by: janet8 | October 22, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse


Adam, you are the only one who thinks NPR doesn't have a liberal bias. My liberal wife thinks they have a liberal bias, they are funded almost exclusively by liberal leaning MEGA foundations... Hey how was that 1.8 MILLION dollar gift from Soros?

Posted by: dboc_991 | October 22, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I think the arguments from the right are, as usual, canards drifting away from the salient issue in Williams firing.

He was really, really bad as a political commentator at NPR (wimpy as they are). He sucked as a replacement for Ray Suarez on "Talk of the Nation" and he has remained a very unimpressive paperweight since. NPR can certainly find better, more coherent and incisive commentators. Williams is content to play a Colmes-type role at Fox in an illusion so let him. If he is more comfortable in the entertainment business, fine. But please, don't fall for the conflation that Fox burps out.

Posted by: BigSky3 | October 22, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

NPR can forget about a pledge from me this year.

As they say, 'Think global, act local'

I will call their pledge line & let them know this however. So nice that my local station (WHRV) has a toll-free number...

Posted by: ARHinVA | October 22, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

WAHHH! SOROS! WAHHH! *sniff sniff*

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The headline - Conservatives declare war on NPR - tells you all you need to know about Journolist.

To even the most impartial observer, NPR declared war on conservatives long ago.

Is the Journolist nothing more than an echo chamber..chamber..chamber

Posted by: TECWRITE | October 22, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"NPR declared war on conservatives long ago."

That's right.

It's because conservatives are anti-fact and anti-intellectual.

Deal with it, fool.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Not that most of you will take the time to reflect but look at the posts. It’s so predictable. I espouse a conservative view point so I must be:
1. Stupid.
2. An anti-Semite.
Well I suppose I will have to console myself with the knowledge that.
1. We are winning.
2. We are going to win.

Posted by: jacksonwneil | October 22, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Right Wingers who have never contributed to NPR pledge drives are vowing to Boycott future NPR pledge drives. That will show them.

Juan Williams should thank NPR, and tithe them ten percent of the $2 million that NPR pulled out of Rupert's pocket, for him.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Few on the right thought CNN's hasty decision to let go of Octavia Nasr was a threat to freedom"

Yeah ... Sympathizing with terrorist groups is a BIT different than expressing a natural concern about a group of people who happen to support murdering those who disagree with them about 5% of the time. This only follows the common liberal reasoning that "It's not the nature of the evidence that matters; it's the seriousness of the charge." (see Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Obama's accusations of GOP taking funds from foreign contributors, Mein Kampf, etc.)

"Williams himself seems to think his own firing is the kind of thing that leads to Soviet-style forced labor camps, which is the kind of reasoning that really is more at home on Fox News."

Funny, I don't remember Juan saying anything about Soviet labor camps - but I do remember some Schill insinuating that Juan has problems with his mental health.

"Sarah Palin has returned to her bizarre understanding of the First Amendment, which is that people who share her views have a right to be paid for them."

Somehow I think Palin MIGHT disagree with that, but nice attempt at mind reading.

"However poorly NPR handled the Williams incident, the notion that NPR is "left wing" is ridiculous."

Yes, so ridiculous that most of the liberals I know who listen to news radio only listen to NPR and any conservative you can ask will tell you it's leftwardly biased. Find a person who tells you they only get their news from NPR and you've found a dyed in the wool liberal.

Posted by: default013 | October 22, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

dboc_911 -

NPR only appears to have a liberal bias because they discuss issues in depth. Discussing issues in depth is like a silver bullet to most of what passes for Conservative ideas these days.

Firing Juan Williams was stupid beyond belief and I won't defend NPR one iota for that. But overall, they run a solid operation. You should listen to it sometime. It might be good for you.

Posted by: klautsack | October 22, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Juan Williams is being punished for working over at FOX NEWS. It's as simple as that. NPR is very ANTI-free speech. The NPR wesite is the only one where my comments have ever been deleted. My comments are pretty mild BUT they are not aligned with the liberal, politically correct views of the ivory tower leftists that hold NPR hostage.

If NPR had to survive on it's own, it would go bankrupt.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 22, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad he's gone. I never understood how he was hired in the first place. He's a terrible reporter, a worse analyst, and just talks nonsense on Fox Sunday. So even if they shouldn't have fired him for his ridiculous assertion that he's afraid of guys with skull caps on, they should have done it long ago for just not being up to NPR quality. Sorry Juan, I'm one NOT sorry to see you go!

Posted by: LAB2 | October 22, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Battleground 51: not true, others from NPR have appeared as FOX contributors. It's what he SAYS on Fox that is so confounding, he's just a terrible analyst.

Posted by: LAB2 | October 22, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Juan Williams today called for NPR to stop taking Government funds. He says they are on the dole.

Juan got religion on that issue, on the day after he was taken of the dole. Up until then, he had no problems with it.


Juan has found some wonderful new friends rushing to back him.

From TPM((yesterday)

Pamela Geller wrote today: "No one is safe, not even liberals, from islamic supremacism and the assault on free speech. I am no fan of Juan Williams, but I will defend to my death his right to speak his mind."

The day Nasr stepped down, she was thrilled: "Today the Nazi lover resigned. In a word, GOOD!"

And on the Sanchez firing, Geller said: "In another Jew-hating gaffe, a well known CNN anchor has been terminated over outrageous, hateful remarks about Jews." She added: "This is systemic. And it should be raising red flags in media corporate offices. You have a problem. And so does Jon Stewart; he shills for these goons and their ideology."'

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"NPR is very ANTI-free speech"

More evidence that the right:

DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Where are the adults in the Republican Party who will stand up for the original meaning of the First Amendment as it has been understood since its ratification?

Posted by: Ethan2010
______________________________

I think the meaning of the first amendment is very much in question. Otherwise there wouldn't be nearly as much activity in the court system to define it.

Posted by: Bailers | October 22, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Are there any boundaries left in GOP campaign circles?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102210dnmetbroden.1b2338185.html

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 22, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

NPR has the very same right to determine who gets to speak on air, as Rush Limbaugh does. He screens the calls, and decides who he will let speak, and not speak.

Furthermore; NPR has not done anything to stop Juan Williams from speaking. All they have done is decided to stop paying him for saying stuff on their broadcasts.

Juan was not engaging in free speech on NPR. He was being paid by them. He was engaging in Fee, not Free Speech.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"Otherwise there wouldn't be nearly as much activity in the court system to define it."

Yes, there is an activist mentality amongst conservatives to CHANGE THE MEANING of the First Amendment to fit their bizarre, anti-American Christian Fundamentalist Sharia Law.

Of course, the activist conservative SCOTUS judges are more than willing to abide.

U.S. Constitution? Not Fundamentalist enough for the Christian Taliban.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

re there any boundaries left in GOP campaign circles?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102210dnmetbroden.1b2338185.html

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 22, 2010 12:03 PM
....................

None what so ever. Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann have been making similar threats.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

What this essay from Mr Serwer proves is that there is nothing under the sun that he cannot misunderstand.

further, Mr Serwer makes the same elitist mistake as his gracious host Mr Sargent. It boils down to this: something is what they say it is because they say so.

So Mr Serwer says that NPR is biased toward liberals. No facts, no evidence, no support. We are required to simply take his word for it because he's got a writing gig and is therefore smarter than everyone else.

yeah, right.

I support the efforts to defund NPR. Not only at the Federal level but we should also ask all the colleges and universities that broadcast NPR to reduce their demand from the tax payers and tuition payers by an amount equal to their cost for acquiring and transmitting their content.

According to Mr Serwer they don't need the money so let's save the money and reduce the deficit.

What the left willfully ignores, at their peril, is the object lesson in the downside of political correctness that America is being taught.

We've seen two excellent examples of the PC machine in the past few days. First we had those fools on that ladies chat show and now this firing.

The liberals just can't wait for all of America to come to the realization that the left seeks to control everyone's thoughts. We can only say those things that are approved by the left. We can only fear those things that the left believes are worthy of concern.

To stray off the liberal plantation is to risk being whipped by the liberal masters.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a taste of liberal venom, just to get things rolling today:
======
"NPR declared war on conservatives long ago."

That's right.

It's because conservatives are anti-fact and anti-intellectual.

Deal with it, fool.

===========
Yup, that's the way the left deals with people who have the nerve to stray from their dogma. Delightful, no?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Leftists love NPR because NPR along with MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WP, LAT, and a lot of others are to them what FOX is perceived to be to Republicans and conservatives.

Let's face it. 90+% of American media is biased leftward. I'm talking news, entertainment, education, magazines, and newspapers.

FOX is a tiny island of conservatism in an ocean of liberalism.

But it is where America lives.

Go figure!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 22, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Personally I think that a GOP Congressional candidate's call
for the Violent Overthrow of our
Govt. is much more important than the latest gossip on JW. Apparently political and social anarchy are now the new norm within some GOP candidates. Some doubted the meaning of Sharon Angle's calls for second amendment remedies, obviously she is not alone in those loonie sentiments. Its hard to make up this kind of political insanity.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 22, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, so ridiculous that most of the liberals I know who listen to news radio only listen to NPR and any conservative you can ask will tell you it's leftwardly biased."

So your proof that NPR is liberal is that liberals listen to it? Does the fact that you and apparently many other conservatives read this blog make the blog conservative?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 22, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I am a so called "right-winger", tea party, Fox watching, Constitution loving American who does listen to NPR and voluntarily contributes annually. I will still continue to listen to NPR. Do they have a right to fire Juan Williams? Yeah. But come on, you can't for a second believe that this incident is in anyway intellectually honest or consistent.

Posted by: BlackJack43 | October 22, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Score: Reason 1 - FoxPac - 0

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | October 22, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

it was a business decision which I mistakenly thought that the radical right believes in. They believed he breached his contract and fired him. WHO CARES other than the radical right. More importantly do they stand with their candidates who advocate for the Violent Overthrow of our democracy? Are their no sacred boundaries left for the GOP? Apparently not.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 22, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Should NPR have fired him for this? No, not in my opinion. But this sounds like it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. As such, I can understand NPR’s decision.

Am I sad to see him go? No, not at all.

Is NPR going to have trouble raising money because of this incident? No, it will probably be easier. Right wingers have had a hate-on for NPR for years; for them to threaten to stop supporting NPR is like Ethan2010 or I threatening to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. And Jim Demint threatening to defund NPR will cause lefties like us to contribute more than we ever have in the past.

In a weird way this is a win for everyone. 1) Liberals no longer have to hear Juan Williams on NPR 2) Juan Williams gets a huge new deal with Fox 3) Conservatives get to pretend they are victims

The only downside for Juan Williams is that now that he works for Fox full time he may have to run for President as a Republican like many of the his fellow Fox commentators.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 22, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I think George Soros ought to buy NPR outright. He would be helping his pal, Barack Obama, by decreasing the debt.

I think the old communist ought to give NPR a swell new name though.

"Air America" comes to mind.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 22, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"90+% of American media is biased leftward."

It's called FACTUAL REPORTING.

Get used to it.

YOU are the one screaming at passing ships from the remote island of insanity and innuendo.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

All, check out Harry Reid's closing ad, with his latest brutal attack on Sharron Angle:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/harry_reids_closer.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 22, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The liberals just can't wait for all of America to come to the realization that the left seeks to control everyone's thoughts. We can only say those things that are approved by the left. We can only fear those things that the left believes are worthy of concern.

To stray off the liberal plantation is to risk being whipped by the liberal masters.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a taste of liberal venom, just to get things rolling today:

----------------------------------------

Skip- The other post is obviously wrong and not representative of my views and those of many others.

However, your accusations of thought control seem to be hypocritical. If someone says something I find offensive, am I not allowed to confront them about it?
One of the defenses consistently made on Williams' behalf is that he was just being honest about how he feels. So how is me being honest about feeling offended any different?
Yet you appear to be defending Williams for expressing his feelings while condemning me, despite doing the same thing, as attempting to control people's thoughts.

Is it a matter of how I express myself upon being offended, namely that if I start accusing you of being racist and/or get you fired that I drift into thought control.

To avoid a tangent, I wasn't actually offended by Williams' comments and I don't think he should have been fired.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 22, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"that's the way the left deals with people who have the nerve to stray from their dogma. Delightful, no?"

That's right Skip.

You consistently, relentlessly reject factual arguments.

But that's the rest of the world's bias, right? It couldn't possibly be related to your anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-fact ranting, could it?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

However poorly NPR handled the Williams incident, the notion that NPR is "left wing" is ridiculous.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Posted by: Rjames2 | October 22, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I am a so called "right-winger", tea party, Fox watching, Constitution loving American who does listen to NPR and voluntarily contributes annually. I will still continue to listen to NPR. Do they have a right to fire Juan Williams? Yeah. But come on, you can't for a second believe that this incident is in anyway intellectually honest or consistent.

Posted by: BlackJack43 | October 22, 2010 12:10 PM

It is consistent with Rich Sanchez getting fired for what he said about the Jewish people. O'Reilly was all in favor of that firing, as was Glen Beck. They are the ones who are being inconsistent.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

At first I felt for Juan, then I started reading the "real" story and discovered NPR had reprimanded him multiple times in the past year for contract violations. The guy WANTED to get fired and that's why he said what he did. Turns out Fox News had a $2 million contract just waiting for his signature. The whole thing is a farce.

Posted by: GenuineRisk | October 22, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Juan got a tidy 2 million dropped onto his nightstand by Fox. It's pretty obvious how the multi-nationals run the US by buying the coverage they want. As Jack Welch famously noted, it was easy to get Russert ("integrity if for paupers") to come around to spouting whatever he wanted by laying a little green on him.
Fact is, I doubt the market for adult diapers, gold brokering, and internet work from home scams is big enough to pay Lush and Beck their massive salaries-it all comes down to how many bed sores one will accept for money. Juan has gotten plenty, and Murdoch will happily, if disdainfully, toss the wad of cash in his face on his way out the door.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | October 22, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Reality Check:

How many millions of commercial plane flights, both within the USA, and in and out of it, take place each year?

Juan Williams is far more likely to get killed by lighting, by gun shot, or car accident, than he is to ever be on the same plane flight as a terrorist.

Juan will fit right in with all those irrational right wing bedwetters.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

New thread, Harry Reid closing ad is brutal, but positive:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/harry_reids_closer.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 22, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

OT:

- NOAA: Warming Arctic unlikely to return to how it was -

New observations this year about snow, ice and temperatures support the conclusion that the Arctic is unlikely to return to the conditions known in the 20th century — and that's likely to affect the weather in the lower 48 United States.

That was this year's key message in the annual update of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Arctic report card, released Thursday. The key points, a video and links to scientific reports by 69 scientists from eight countries are available from NOAA online.

The report card is one way that scientists share information about trends they're seeing in the Arctic as a result of the region's warming cycle: Higher air temperatures melt snow and ice, leaving the ocean and land darker, and they then absorb more solar energy, causing more heating and melting.

[...]

"It's very likely Arctic climate warming will continue and that we'll continue to set records in the years to come," she said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/21/102421/noaa-warming-arctic-unlikely-to.html

Thanks Big Oil! Thanks Big Coal!

We don't need no stinkin' Arctic!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Liberal writers are furiously concerned with the enthusiasm gap that has opened up between conservatives and liberals this year. It's no wonder.

NPR just fed the enthusiasm on the right again. Just as if it was trying to.

Barack Obama pussyfooting with illegal "immigrants" fed conservatives red meat.

"Gays" running rampant in the military is like a double expresso with sugar.

Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, ObamaCare, trillion dollar debt, ACORN.

Mosques at ground zero, etc, etc.

It's like a smorgasbord of high powered calories for conservatives laid out by liberals.

Thanks! We are full now and ready to vote.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 22, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Ethan 2010-do you really think you post can overcome the weight of 70 phony climate denier organizations funded by the Koch brothers? Right wingers think we were attacked by Iraqis on 9-11. They think Obama wasn't born in the US. They think we were riding around on dinosaurs 4000 years ago. Please.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | October 22, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Today Juan Williams called for "NPR to get off the Dole". Until yesterday, he had no objection to they Doling it out to him.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

It really is true that to farrrr-leftists, NPR is not left-wing. Fron the farrrrrr left fringe, NPR seems to be very moderate and, to some, even conservative. It's a point of view thing.

We can be sure of one thing though. The ones that claim NPR is moderate-to-conservative are screaming at the top of their lungs from wayyyyyyyyyyy out there in farrrrrrrrrr left field.

I can barely hear them.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 22, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Conservatives Declare War On NPR". Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, and Rush Limbaugh immediately apply for deferments.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan points out one upside to the Williams firing:

****

A reader writes:

At least there's one good thing to come out of this whole Juan Williams v. NPR mess: we've finally found a program that Republicans are willing to say they would cut.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 22, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Why is Liam-still talking about "Dole"??

That old, used-up RINO is yesteryear's news.

Juan Williams now knows what it's like to be kicked off welfare and get a real job.

Welfare reform, NPR style.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 22, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

This is a good move on NPR's part, even if it was not handled in the best way. Williams crossed the line when he suggested that prejudice makes sense. It does not. And there is no way one can trust a news organization (as compared to an opinion based organization) if one of their analysts believes that prejudice makes sense.

Good move.

Posted by: michiganmaine | October 22, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I am bothered by how many people do not understand what free speech means- no one arrested Juan for what he said- he got fired. Your employer can make those decisions-and boo hoo Juan just got a new $2 million contract at FOX. He can feel free to say how scared Muslims make him there. He just better never say anything negative about the Tea party or say there is no War on Christmas.

Posted by: silverspring25 | October 22, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse


Juan used to love to take his share of NPR's government Dole Money.

Now that he is no longer getting his slice, he has demanded that NPR get off it too.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Maybe what NPR really needs is more money to hire more moderates and conservatives to generate a greater diversity of views, not firing people for less diversity of views to express truly liberal views. Looks like Fox News maybe more liberal than we thought.

Posted by: lorddunsmore | October 22, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Juan isn't a bigot he's just in the bigot business. He's a right wing conservative. He has no business working for a place like NPR anymore. He's more of an entertainer now. Fox News is perfect for him. He belongs with Beck, O'Reilly, et al...Juan has turned into a joke. I wonder how many uncle Toms like Juan realize that white folks think they are saps and fools. Being used...smh. It's almost as dumb as watching poor white blue collar America vote for the GOP who favors rich corporations. It's amazing what race will make a person do. The poor white "trash" that vote GOP are almost as stupid as Juan Williams. Both are being used and don't know it. So...enjoy being a hero to the right Juan. smh...Poor whites keep voting with the GOP so we can give rich people tax breaks, stay in trillion dollar a year wars, and keep doing the things that wiped away the surplus Bill Clinton left us with.

Poor people who vote GOP because of race are fools!!!

Posted by: kentonsmith | October 22, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

NPR and George Soros: Soros just donated over $1 MILLION Dollars to NPR.
Soros, of SOROS INVESTMENTS, WALL STREET.
Soros has donated Billions to Democratic
campaigns over the years.
Soros Investments invests in FOREIGN COMPANIES companies all over the world......
I guess Obama and Democrats need to give all those FOREIGN campaign contributions back, right?

Posted by: ohioan | October 22, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, nice to see that not much has changed in your life. Good for you!

Ashot. I'm not defending anyone. I'm offering an opinion. As support for my opinion I offer the reply posted by Ethan and the behavior of goldberg/behar on the view.

I stand by my contention. A few weeks ago, when I commented that concern about muslim violence was simple prudence I was sagely advised that muslim inspired violence isn't a threat to America. The biggest threat to America is white people.

Sorry, but after months of reading the liberals here my opinions about them are based on hard evidence. Hang around awhile and enjoy the festivities.

I find you to be a thoughtful and open minded person. That's a rarity in these environs so I'm delighted that you found this blog. Welcome!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

ohioan,

YAY GEORGE SOROS!

Thank you George Soros for contributing to Democratic campaigns and bastions of intellectual thought like NPR!

WOO HOO! GEORGE SOROS! Thank you!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"my opinions about them are based on hard evidence"

HAHAHA! "hard evidence"

Says Skip, who opposes seat belt laws, opposes education, and thinks energy efficient light bulbs are *GAK* stealing his *GAK* FREEDOMS!!!

ashot, don't bother with that guy, he ain't playing with a full deck.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I have tripled my contribution to NPR. Thank you NPR for having the courage to let that wolf in sheep's clothing go. He belongs on faux noise where he can be as bigoted as those idiots over there. faux noise is welcome to him. Good riddance.

Posted by: letemhaveit | October 22, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

@wapo:

-New GOP money is old GOP money-

Despite tea party energy, outside groups funded by Swift Boaters, other old hands

The donations are part of a broader pattern of giving this year dominated by longtime party fundraisers, Wall Street financiers and energy tycoons. Despite the burst of new political energy surrounding the tea party movement, only a thin slice of the population is donating, with the number of Americans giving $200 or more dropping dramatically.

Records suggest that much of the money fueling a wave of negative attack advertising comes from a stable of old political hands with roots going back as far as the Nixon era.

American Crossroads, one of this year's biggest Republican-friendly spenders, has received 42 percent of its money from a dozen supporters of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the independent group that ran ads in 2004 accusing Kerry of lying about his war record, according to a Washington Post analysis. The single biggest contributor to the group, with $7 million, is Bob J. Perry, the Texas home builder who was the top Swift Boat financier.

Perry and other Swift Boaters have given millions more to other prominent conservative groups as well, including the Republican Governors Association and the First Amendment Alliance, an independent group funded primarily by energy executives from Texas and Colorado.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102203567.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

hey ethan2010 you moron Soros does not hide the causes he contributes. This is unlike the coke brothers (deliberate misspelling on their name) who hide behind the cloak of anonymity to fund the teabagheadnazilunatics.

Posted by: letemhaveit | October 22, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

letemhaveit,

I'm on the good side. I think George Soros is great.

He stands up for freedom and democracy both here and around the world and puts his money where his mouth is. He is a true humanitarian and lover of freedom.

George Soros is unlike the shills in the GOP who are so anti-freedom that they tell Hispanic Americans "Don't Vote". The Republican Tea Party is owned by massive corporations who want nothing to do with freedom or liberty, just profiteering off you and me. Their idiot, know-nothing, fact-free, anti-intellectual, anti-education apologists prove this every single day.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Ethan- I've been in a number of discussions with skip and like most of us, he has his good and bad moments.

Skip- Thanks for the welcome, I can't handle Lisa over at RightMatters anymore. This place seems a bit better although it's still pretty crappy.

Your response seemed like a bit of a dodge. I mean at one point does expressing how I feel become thought control? The whole notion of censorship and thought control is hard to swallow considering there is a whole political movement and the most popular news network have nary a good thing to say about our President.

Anyway, on a much more interesting subject and one more up your alley: What are your thoughts on ACO's? You're probably going to vomit, but I'm writing an article that addresses them and other efforts to "bend the cost curve" and would be interested in your thoughts and any resources you may have/ know of.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 22, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I love all these commentors who talk about the "pattern" they find in looking back over Williams'history.

And I have in my pocket, my friends, a list of 35, I mean, 57, treasonous comments this man has made. . .

Posted by: ctucker544 | October 22, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

@morenews1 -

Here is what is so completely stupid about your comment - and the reason why normal people cannot have an intelligent conversation with a Liberal. Liberals always make asinine analogies that have NOTHING to do with the original topic.


"Is it OK as long as it's a Muslim?

How about a mexican?

HOw about an African-American?

How about an Hindu?

How about an Christian Evangelist (God forbid)? "


Mexicans, African-Americans, Hindu's and Christian Evangelists are NOT trying to blow up Americans. Timothy McViegh was a nut that happened to be a Christian. He did not blow up the building in Oklahoma because of his religious beliefs - he did because he was mad at the government's handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

But the stinking terrorists that took out the WTC's on 9/11 were Muslims who did it in the NAME of their religion - and FOR their religion. So, do you see how idiotic your comparisons are?

So tired of liberals and all their damn political correctness - and their lack of common sense which leads them to make idiotic analogies like the one I quoted.

Posted by: Snowdog | October 22, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Do we need a nobody like Greg Sargent to tell us whether NPR is left leaning? No. Is NPR left leaning? Absolutely. Is PBS left leaning, especially the News Hour? Abolutely. These people are just as one-sided as MSNBC. Maybe they don't go about it the same way but the results are the same and from Gwen Ifill to Judy Woodruff, wife of super left leaning Al Hunt of Bloomsberg, their support for Democrats like their hero Obama is very apparent. I doubt that anyone who does not have those leanings would listen to any of these people. Do NPR and PBS have good programs? Many but their politics have gotten out of hand, especially since Barack Obama starting campaigning for president. Best change now before the Republicans take power...they will take away the funding.

Posted by: William18 | October 22, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Actually,

Bin Laden said that he was going after Americans, because of their history of meddling in Muslim lands.

When Bush Sr. Established US Military bases in Saudi Arabia, that is what really set Bin Laden off. He even turned against The Saudi Government because of that, and guess what folks, Bin Laden's terrorists have killed far more Muslims than Christians, so stow all that nonsense about it being strictly about Muslims want to kill Christians.

Bin Laden is just another homicidal megalomaniac, who is trying to hijack Islam, for his own evil purposes, and not because he is a devout Muslim, because he is not.

In fact he is a rotten coward. He promised right after 9/11 that he would soon seek martyrdom. He never did. He is just another coward.

I wish our Government would broadcast that fact through out all of Islam, over and over.

Ridicule Bin Laden for the lying coward that he truly is.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Mexicans, African-Americans, Hindu's and Christian Evangelists are NOT trying to blow up Americans. Timothy McViegh was a nut that happened to be a Christian. He did not blow up the building in Oklahoma because of his religious beliefs - he did because he was mad at the government's handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

But the stinking terrorists that took out the WTC's on 9/11 were Muslims who did it in the NAME of their religion - and FOR their religion. So, do you see how idiotic your comparisons are?
-----------------------------
Uh...The terrorist bomb WTC because of America's support for Isarael. Not because of their religion. There are many Christian countries in the world and they not targeted by these groups because of their faith. But, if they were holding up the defense of Israel then they would be targets of anti-Isarael terrorism too. It's a simple as that. For many in the middle east; terrorist or peacemakers, the was Isarael was awared their land leaves a bad taste in area Muslims mouths. I can understand that. I don't see why most ignorant Americans can't. But then again.....Sarah Palin actually has a following in this country. So anything is possible. :)

Posted by: kentonsmith | October 22, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"Mexicans, African-Americans, Hindu's and Christian Evangelists are NOT trying to blow up Americans. Timothy McViegh was a nut that happened to be a Christian. He did not blow up the building in Oklahoma because of his religious beliefs - he did because he was mad at the government's handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco."
Except that Rudolph, the Christian Identity follower did act out of religious motivation. You don't see people condemning all Christians as terrorists because of what he did. You don't see people blaming Hitler on the Catholics either. You know why? Because that would be moronic.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | October 22, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

So tired of liberals and all their damn political correctness - and their lack of common sense which leads them to make idiotic analogies like the one I quoted.

Posted by: Snowdog
------------------------------------
Here is an example of another analogy taken from grammar.about.com:

"I am to dancing what Roseanne is to singing and Donald Duck to motivational speeches. I am as graceful as a refrigerator falling down a flight of stairs."

The fact that Roseanne and the speaker are not cartoon ducks doesn't make it an idiotic analogy. The point is that Roseanne is bad singer and Donald Duck is a bad motivation and the speaker is a bad dancer.

Similarly, the point of the original idiotic analogy is that if just like you shouldn't be afraid of all blacks because some blacks are criminals you should be afraid of all Muslims because some of them are terrorists.

Is it a perfect analogy, obviously not. There is no text that I am aware of that has been interpreted by african americans as an instruction committ crimes. The same cannot be said of Muslims.

However, I think it's possible to look past the weaknesses in the comparison and recognize the point that is being made rather than just simply making a generic statement about the intelligence of a giant segment of our country.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 22, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

And people are not blaming Irish Catholics; Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity for all the killings carried out by The IRA. Should we fear O'Reilly and Hannity, because they are Irish Catholics just like those IRA terrorists.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Actually,

Bin Laden said that he was going after Americans, because of their history of meddling in Muslim lands.

When Bush Sr. Established US Military bases in Saudi Arabia, that is what really set Bin Laden off. He even turned against The Saudi Government because of that, and guess what folks, Bin Laden's terrorists have killed far more Muslims than Christians, so stow all that nonsense about it being strictly about Muslims wanting to kill Christians.

Bin Laden is just another homicidal megalomaniac, who is trying to hijack Islam, for his own evil purposes, and not because he is a devout Muslim, because he is not.

In fact he is a rotten coward. He promised right after 9/11 that he would soon seek martyrdom. He never did. He is just another coward.

I wish our Government would broadcast that fact through out all of Islam, over and over.

Ridicule Bin Laden for the lying coward that he truly is.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

jacksonwneil said: Most of us “dimwitted” conservatives understand that NPR is little more than a taxpayer subsidized farce.

OK, you don't have listen to the news or analysis, but you're claiming the entire network is a farce?

Do I watch Fox news or analysis? Never ever. Do I watch other stuff on Fox? Sure.

This is the "one man's pork" situation: you think early warning systems for earthquakes are useless pork, because your state never has earthquakes!

There are dozens of awesome programs on NPR and PBS, but here's just one example.
Go look up Mountainstage.org and then tell us NPR is a farce.

Your loss, though, if you never listen.

Posted by: dnorman76 | October 22, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

ashot, I understand your point, I just don't agree. The firing of Juan Williams was based on his failure to adhere to NPR's speech codes. Look at how it was handled by their CEO. She basically said that his fears were a private matter between him and his psychiatrist. I return to my point about the consequences of straying from the liberal plantation. They fired him and held him up to ridicule. They did what Alinsky advised. I'm sorry you don't see that, but many of us do.

it is the same with two uber liberal ladies on the view. They stalked off to demonstrate their displeasure with Mr O'reilly's choice of words. Even though his words were factually correct, they took offense. The attempt was to end a conversation of which they didn't approve.

This is all a variation the magical incantation "Racist". the entire tea party movement was labeled as such in an effort to end a national conversation that the left finds unwelcome. The liberals hope that by calling names they will stifle speech. It has worked so well for so long they have few other weapons. again, just look at Ethan's "contribution" here today. Nothing but name calling and venom. Why? because calling me a racist won't shut me up. He's got no other recourse.

I, like many others in America, am tired of being called a racist because I have the nerve to point out that liberal approaches have failed and other alternatives exist. It just proves my point: liberals are seeking to control the conversation, just as they are seeking to control every other aspect of our lives. somehow if we can just get the right lightbulbs and the right toilets and the right car seats and the right cars and the right power plants and the right bureaucrats America will awaken to a new and enlightened era.

yeah, right.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Williams is not the only Black person working at NPR. Look at the personnel photos on their website. Quite a few Black people there, at least an equal ratio to the country's population. It I were white, I would assume Mr. Williams cries of victimhood ring of that old conservative screed I hear all the time. He has a new contract and will make more money, something quite a few people in the country will not get to do this year.....

Posted by: Marrone | October 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

When someone prefaces their remarks with: Look Bill, you know I am not a bigot; that is an admission that he was not just blurting out something without being aware of how incendiary his words were. He said them knowingly and intentionally.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

OK, now the ACO's

Frankly I was unfamiliar with the acronym, but I did a quick google and began reading. I found this:
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2010/03/11/a-guide-to-accountable-care-organizations-and-their-role-in-the-senates-health-reform-bill/

As I was reading the article I thought that this was just the return of the son of full risk capitation from the '90's and indeed the article contains dissenting voices that confirmed my suspicion.

Basically full risk cap works this way: an organization is paid per member per month and must see to all the medical needs of the patient. There's the risk. On paper this approach should work but it didn't for a variety of reasons.

Lofty concepts like "alignment" get bruted about but ultimately it boils down to money. Who controls it, who gets it, who shares it and so forth.

Read the Goldsmith dissent for a contrary view.

BTW I built a full risk cap network in the '90's. My organization owned a multispecialty physician practice, an acute care hospital, a snf, a psych hospital and some ancillary op offerings such as therapy and lab. We "bought" services that we didn't own such as dialysis and home healthcare.

it was a grand experiment and again on paper it should have worked. But on paper, communism should have worked too.

Have things changed enough since then? I dunno. I'll keep reading though.
Among the most significant differences is the expectation of the physicians. In the '90's they expected to work long hours and make big bucks. Today's docs are seeking a different balance. But they will always want to be compensated for the enormous effort they under took to achieve their professional standing.

Also some changes in the exec suite are required to. Often various sub units within an organization are incentivized to sub optimize each other. For example a captive insurance plan's success is the hospital's failure and vice versa. Big volume in the hospital means expenses for the insurance company. tight control on utilization means tough times for the hospital but success for the plan. Getting this right is tough. Hospitals are complex, so are insurance companies It is arrogant to think that we can run it all from one place, I think.

More to follow.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I do not believe that Juan Williams was simply articulating his fears in an honest way. I don't buy that for a second.

Mr. Williams knows full well that the safest seat on an airplane these days is probably the seat next to a Muslim dressed in traditional garb. We all know that passenger has been more thoroughly screened and targeted than anyone else on the plane. Al-Qaeda is not going to dress up terrorists to look conspicuously Muslim and then put them on airplanes to alert everyone that they are about to wreak havoc.

So it's nothing but dumb for Mr. Williams to have made that remark, and he knows it. He also knows that the real threat is from Americans who have been recruited by Al-Qaeda and who look just like the most all-American citizen in your community.

And since Mr. Williams is well aware of this, one can only surmise that his remarks about fearing Muslims who look like Muslims is really nothing but fear-mongering hate speech and racial profiling.

And NPR has every right to decide that they no longer want to pay him good money for that.

Posted by: elscott | October 22, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

well here's a rarity; I agree with something Liam-still wrote:
==========
so stow all that nonsense about it being strictly about Muslims wanting to kill Christians.
======

It isn't strictly about muslims wanting to kill christians. But it is very much about muslims wanting to kill anyone and everyone.

In the nine years since 9/11 we've gotten a good long look at a ghastly culture. We witnessed a war between America and the arab world wherein the arab/muslims attempted to fight not by killing American soldiers but by killing each other. The blood of Iraqis ran in the streets as muslims killed each other in an orgy of claims of apostasy and such. Ghastly, backward and very, very dangerous.

Further, the muslims have slaughtered thousands of Bhuddists in Thailand. they killed how many animists in Africa? We've lost count.

so I take no comfort from the left's hollow assurances that this isn't about muslims wanting to kill christians. Oh no. It is about muslims wanting to kill.

Period.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

well here's a rarity; I agree with something Liam-still wrote:
==========
so stow all that nonsense about it being strictly about Muslims wanting to kill Christians.
======

It isn't strictly about muslims wanting to kill christians. But it is very much about muslims wanting to kill anyone and everyone.

In the nine years since 9/11 we've gotten a good long look at a ghastly culture. We witnessed a war between America and the arab world wherein the arab/muslims attempted to fight not by killing American soldiers but by killing each other. The blood of Iraqis ran in the streets as muslims killed each other in an orgy of claims of apostasy and such. Ghastly, backward and very, very dangerous.

Further, the muslims have slaughtered thousands of Bhuddists in Thailand. they killed how many animists in Africa? We've lost count.

so I take no comfort from the left's hollow assurances that this isn't about muslims wanting to kill christians. Oh no. It is about muslims wanting to kill.

Period.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"somehow if we can just get the right lightbulbs and the right toilets and the right car seats and the right cars and the right power plants and the right bureaucrats America will awaken to a new and enlightened era.

yeah, right."

HAHAHA!

Ignorance on display!

You should stop wearing your seatbelt in protest of the government stealing your FREEEEEDOMSSS!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I do not like to let some Right Wing Bed Wetter take some snippet, and quote me out of context; so here is what I actually wrote:

Actually,

Bin Laden said that he was going after Americans, because of their history of meddling in Muslim lands.

When Bush Sr. Established US Military bases in Saudi Arabia, that is what really set Bin Laden off. He even turned against The Saudi Government because of that, and guess what folks, Bin Laden's terrorists have killed far more Muslims than Christians, so stow all that nonsense about it being strictly about Muslims wanting to kill Christians.

Bin Laden is just another homicidal megalomaniac, who is trying to hijack Islam, for his own evil purposes, and not because he is a devout Muslim, because he is not.

In fact he is a rotten coward. He promised right after 9/11 that he would soon seek martyrdom. He never did. He is just another coward.

I wish our Government would broadcast that fact through out all of Islam, over and over.

Ridicule Bin Laden for the lying coward that he truly is.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

in response to this;
======
I do not like to let some Right Wing Bed Wetter take some snippet, and quote me out of context; so here is what I actually wrote:

================

so what are you going to do about it?

Poor nasty widdle boy. Are your feelings all hurt and such sonny?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Poor nasty widdle boy. Are your feelings all hurt and such sonny?"

Skip does this ALL THE TIME.

He thinks it makes him look mature.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

a. Close your eyes and imagine he said the same thing about a Christian or Jew.

b. The idea that a black man is profiling people is hilarious to me.

He got what he deserved.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 22, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Serwer sez: "its hard to have an honest conversation about prejudice if you can't admit your own."

Liberals don't want an honest conversation.

The only "prejudices" they want admitted are white people to confess their own "racism" against all those dear, sweet, darling "people of color."

Heaven forbid that Muslims should also have to confess how much they despise Jews and Christians, or American blacks to confess their negative feelings toward Jews. Or the fact that the negative feelings toward Muslims by Mr. Williams and many others just might have something to do with the hundreds of Islamist terrorist plots (many successful), and the body count being racked up by Islamist terrorists, while the Palestinians cheer them on.

That might invite a "backlash," so we must act like Muslims and blacks are the most morally superior beings on the face of the earth.

In short, whenever liberals talk about an "honest conversation," they really mean just a monologue of endless racial grievance on the part of minorities against the larger society. While all the other citizens of that larger society just sit silently and take it with their hands in their laps.

NO THANK YOU.

We'll have an honest dialogue on race--the day you can criticize someone of ANY race without being told to shut up.

Posted by: sinz52 | October 22, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I stopped patronizng NPR almost 20 years ago when I saw the smirking, smarmy raciscm of their commentators during the Clarence Thomas hearings. Reporters who would nod solemnly when confronted with the shucking and jiving of Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton were reduced to embarrassed giggles when Thomas's friendly witnesses were trotted out -- well spoken, well-dressed, intelligent (gasp!) black people -- who were somehow conservative. It was clear the reporters, Cokie Roberts and Nina Totenberg, had no idea how to deal with such folks: intelligent black people not running leftist software. This latest Orwellian episode shows how much more fascist and intolerant NPR has become. This media outlet deserves NO public funding. We don't need a ministry of propaganda.

Posted by: ddixon2 | October 23, 2010 2:42 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company