Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

right wing social conservatives "Christian" coalition wingnuts.

left wing righteous, judgmental, anti American lock step radicals.

please America!!! isn't there an island of tolerance and moderation left in this country?

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

right wing social conservatives "Christian" coalition wingnuts.

left wing righteous, judgmental, anti American lock step radicals.

please America!!! isn't there an island of tolerance and moderation left in this country?

Probably yes, but that often-silent majority is usually shouted down by the fringes on both sides.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

The irony of all this is that Juan Williams, by and large, is a liberal. It's not as though he was NPR's token conservative or something. He was part and parcel of NPR's significant liberal tilt. He's moderated a bit in recent years, but anyone who has listened to NPR over the years knows that he tends strongly to liberal perspectives on things. So I guess for a place like NPR, being liberal isn't enough, you have to be very liberal to pass their litmus test.

The fact that NPR would have to ban people from attending the Colbert thing says a lot in and of itself. I seriously doubt they worry about putting bans on their employees attending conservative events.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

right wing social conservatives "Christian" coalition wingnuts.

left wing righteous, judgmental, anti American lock step radicals.

please America!!! isn't there an island of tolerance and moderation left in this country?

Sure there is. It's one thing to object to somebody's opinion, it's another to punish them for expressing it. And to insult the intelligence of the American public by denying that's what you've done. NPR and MSNBC and for that matter Fox aren't my cup of tea. So I don't consume their product. But I would never want to stifle those voices, ever. Some of our liberal friends take another view.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I want to know what brilliant Dem strategist thought it was a good idea to have an Obama rally on the U of MN campus during the home football game. I know the Gophers don't draw well compared to real Big11 teams, but there'll still be nearly 50K there for the game. There are about 5K parking spaces on campus and it's a mess anyway on game day. Adding the rally will guarantee a massive cluster****.

It's kind of weird that he's coming to MN at all isn't it? I mean, I guess the Gov. race is sort of close, but other than that there's not much else is there?

 

[Proud2baLaker]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

That is one of the most thoughtful posts I'ver encountered. Unfortunately it rebuts an argument I wasn't making. The person whose name shall not pass my lips, had criticized me for conflating "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment. An accurate but technical objection, since most people tend to use the phrases interchangeably. Obviously Juan Williams has no First Amendment right to be an employee of NPR. In my post I was clumsily pointing out that in Williams' case, that person appeared to be a "strict constructionalist," whereas in the matter of "the separation of church and state," well, the constitution is a living document, etc. etc.

Frequently those who advance the notion of "separation of church and state" are absolutist on the concept. They are the manger police, making sure no kid anywhere utters the word "Christmas" in a school. Preferring instead "winter holiday" or some other PC locution. This anti-religious totalitarianism is not what the founders had in mind with the First Amendment.

Frequently people who make the "separation of church and state doesn't appear in the Constitution" argument are social conservatives, which I am not.

I guess when I read your post, which admittedly was like minutes after I woke up, I wasnt sure what you were going for. I saw the '"seperation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment' phrase and without reading through every post to really see what the argument was focused on that.

This is why I typically stay out of all things polictical. I care about what the government does but at the same time I dont. Because pretty muich no matter who is in office...any office, they will probably screw it up. That and Im just to lazy to keep a fight/arguement/debate going on for very long.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I guess when I read your post, which admittedly was like minutes after I woke up, I wasnt sure what you were going for. I saw the '"seperation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment' phrase and without reading through every post to really see what the argument was focused on that.

This is why I typically stay out of all things polictical. I care about what the government does but at the same time I dont. Because pretty muich no matter who is in office...any office, they will probably screw it up. That and Im just to lazy to keep a fight/arguement/debate going on for very long.

And it's remotely possible I didn't make my point as cleverly as it seemed. The person whose name shall not pass my lips is able to get my goat in a way few of our posters can. I take full responsibility for going off the deep end in response to his b.s. I just wish he'd man up and admit he approves of punishing a guy for saying something with which HE disagrees. I'm guessing if Williams had said something along the lines that our president makes his legs tingle, and was fired by NPR for doing so, he'd have a different take on the matter. Although I wouldn't expect him to admit it.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

You want to lecture me about the First Amendment, but I'll bet you're a true blue believer in the "separation of church and state," which somehow isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not sure how you conclude that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" doesn't create a separation of church and state. Obviously, the nature and boundaries of that separation are open to debate, but it's fatuous to pretend it doesn't exist.


(And I think you misunderstood the point about freedom of speech as well... the constitutional guarantee is limited in both scope and venue, and the ignorant [which is not necessarily intended to include you] will often toss it around in situations where it is clearly not applicable, most notably with reference to restrictions on speech that are under corporate rather than state purview. The specific application to the NPR flap is that notwithstanding the "Public" name of NPR, it's largely a private organization.)

One thing to bear in mind about left-leaning engagements with self-identified "strict constructionists" is that the left-leaning folks may adopt strict construction arguments to hoist them with their own petard. The adoption of such arguments because the arena makes it expedient to do so does not necessarily mean that the maker of the argument is him or herself a "strict constructionist".

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

The irony of all this is that Juan Williams, by and large, is a liberal. It's not as though he was NPR's token conservative or something. He was part and parcel of NPR's significant liberal tilt. He's moderated a bit in recent years, but anyone who has listened to NPR over the years knows that he tends strongly to liberal perspectives on things. So I guess for a place like NPR, being liberal isn't enough, you have to be very liberal to pass their litmus test.

See - this is the thing - his personal politics don't matter here. As an NPR listener, I think NPR without Williams will be a better product, not because of his particular views on any issue, but because the style of his commentary has become less analytical and more of traditional, vapid punditry.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't listen to NPR because of any perceived liberal tilt, I listen because I want thoughtfully analyzed and thoughtfully presented news.

Do I think his statements warranted termination? No. At the same time, if Juan Williams wasn't already working for NPR at the time, I don't think they'd hire him because the quality of his work has declined a great deal, IMO.

I didn't really have an issue with Williams' appearance on Fox News all the time, either - but the content and tone of what he was saying on Fox was significantly different from his NPR content.

This has little to do with his personal politics.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I'm not sure how you conclude that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" doesn't create a separation of church and state. Obviously, the nature and boundaries of that separation are open to debate, but it's fatuous to pretend it doesn't exist.

Not establishing or prohibiting free exercise is a far cry from the total separation being forced on this nation by the ACLU, etc. I understand that basic understanding doesn't fit a lot of agendas out there.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Not establishing or prohibiting free exercise is a far cry from the total separation being forced on this nation by the ACLU, etc. I understand that basic understanding doesn't fit a lot of agendas out there.

As I said, the nature and boundaries of the separation are open to debate, and I doubt there's anything to be gained from engaging in that debate here.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

See - this is the thing - his personal politics don't matter here. As an NPR listener, I think NPR without Williams will be a better product, not because of his particular views on any issue, but because the style of his commentary has become less analytical and more of traditional, vapid punditry.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't listen to NPR because of any perceived liberal tilt, I listen because I want thoughtfully analyzed and thoughtfully presented news.

Do I think his statements warranted termination? No. At the same time, if Juan Williams wasn't already working for NPR at the time, I don't think they'd hire him because the quality of his work has declined a great deal, IMO.

I didn't really have an issue with Williams' appearance on Fox News all the time, either - but the content and tone of what he was saying on Fox was significantly different from his NPR content.

This has little to do with his personal politics.

I agree at the end of the day Williams being on NPR or not isn't very important from a content standpoint. But you aren't recognizing that peoples' opinions and views inherently influence how they talk about issues, frame issues, etc. And people on NPR, who are clearly for the most part liberal, are no exception to this rule. Williams didn't express his opinions or views on NPR noticeably more or less than a lot of other folks on NPR, he just expressed a view that doesn't line up with NPR's agenda. I listen to NPR regularly, but when they get onto political stuff, I'll flip the channel for awhile until they get back to non-political discussions. They just are quite tilted in their coverage, though of course not in your face like Fox or MSNBC.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Not establishing or prohibiting free exercise is a far cry from the total separation being forced on this nation by the ACLU, etc. I understand that basic understanding doesn't fit a lot of agendas out there.

Forced by the ACLU...hey everyone the boogeyman is here!

I always forget how oppressed the white Christians are...it usually isnt until around Christmas that they start whining about how this nation isnt Christian enough for them...

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I'm not sure how you conclude that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" doesn't create a separation of church and state. Obviously, the nature and boundaries of that separation are open to debate, but it's fatuous to pretend it doesn't exist.


(And I think you misunderstood the point about freedom of speech as well... the constitutional guarantee is limited in both scope and venue, and the ignorant [which is not necessarily intended to include you] will often toss it around in situations where it is clearly not applicable, most notably with reference to restrictions on speech that are under corporate rather than state purview. The specific application to the NPR flap is that notwithstanding the "Public" name of NPR, it's largely a private organization.)

One thing to bear in mind about left-leaning engagements with self-identified "strict constructionists" is that the left-leaning folks may adopt strict construction arguments to hoist them with their own petard. The adoption of such arguments because the arena makes it expedient to do so does not necessarily mean that the maker of the argument is him or herself a "strict constructionist".

I explained my use of that example in an earlier post. Basically, some folks are strict constructionalists when it suits their purpose. Please, no more boiler plate rhetoric on this issue. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text. Subsequent decisions may imply that such a separation is what the founders intended, but the words aren't there. This is an empirical fact. The founders had no intention of limiting the free expression of religion. And this is my last apology for having conflated the various free speech issues involved here. It was imprecise and I know this forum is crawling with constitutional scholars. The only thing I "misunderstood" was that some folks' adherance to the concept of free speech varies with the content of the speech. So please stop arguing the obvious. And be sure to post your literalist concerns the next time some liberal mouths off about free speech, okay?

You either approve of punishing Williams for expressing his opinion on the hated Fox or you don't. You evidently do and I don't. Fine. But assuming I'm right, why don't you and the rest of the constitutional experts just admit it? All of these rationalizations and justifications aren't convincing in the slightest. And lecturing me about the insufficiency of my analogies doesn't really change what happened here, does it?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

See - this is the thing - his personal politics don't matter here. As an NPR listener, I think NPR without Williams will be a better product, not because of his particular views on any issue, but because the style of his commentary has become less analytical and more of traditional, vapid punditry.

(snip)

This has little to do with his personal politics.

It has everything to do with his personal politics - maybe not for you, but it definitely does for NPR execs. He was not fired because the quality of his work for NPR had gone downhill. He was fired for expressing how he felt in a particular situation.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Forced by the ACLU...hey everyone the boogeyman is here!

I always forget how oppressed the white Christians are...it usually isnt until around Christmas that they start whining about how this nation isnt Christian enough for them...

You have to be kidding me. Back to the tired old game of "vilify the other side when you have no argument of your own". Grow up.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I am a strict constitutionalist on Tuesdays, Thursdays and every other Sundays...makes life more fun and really screws with people's heads

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I agree at the end of the day Williams being on NPR or not isn't very important from a content standpoint. But you aren't recognizing that peoples' opinions and views inherently influence how they talk about issues, frame issues, etc.

Where did you get that from my statement? Of course people's views impact their opinions. That's kinda a no-brainer, isn't it?

But that's not why Williams was fired. He was not fired for having views, he was fired for airing those views in a forum that would clearly impact his ability and credibility to offer news analysis (not opinion, analysis)) as an employee of NPR.

And people on NPR, who are clearly for the most part liberal, are no exception to this rule. Williams didn't express his opinions or views on NPR noticeably more or less than a lot of other folks on NPR, he just expressed a view that doesn't line up with NPR's agenda. I listen to NPR regularly, but when they get onto political stuff, I'll flip the channel for awhile until they get back to non-political discussions. They just are quite tilted in their coverage, though of course not in your face like Fox or MSNBC.

There's a difference between bias and partisanship, just like there's a difference between opinion and analysis, even though both require critical judgment and are informed by personal experience.

And I think you are just wrong on Williams - his work on Fox was substantially different in tone and content from his NPR work.

Don't just take it from me, ask NPR:

http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/...nprs-vivian-schiller-on-juan-williams-firing/

Q: Okay. What happened?

A: Let’s state a couple of facts. Juan is not an employee of NPR. He’s an independent contractor. He’s not NPR staff. He’s an NPR analyst. We have a contract with him for analyst opinions to provide news analysis. He is not a columnist or commentator. He also has an on-going relationship with Fox News. Mara Liasson is also on Fox News and is a full-time staffer. We accept that’s a whole other issue. However, we expect our journalists, whether they are news analysts or reporters to behave like journalists.

Q: So did Juan really get fired over just those Muslim comments? [He said he was uncomfortable with Muslims dressed in traditional garb on airplanes during a Fox News telecast yesterday.]

A: There have been several instances over the last couple of years where we have felt Juan has stepped over the line. He famously said last year something about Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael. [The quote on Fox News early last year: "Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going" and that she'll be an "albatross" for President Obama.]. This isn’t a case of one strike and you’re out.

Q: So this is obviously not an isolated incident.

A: There’s so much misinformation on the blogosphere, it’s nuts. This has been an on-going issue. [Here's NPR's ombudsman's piece on him last year after the Obama comment.] When he does that, when anybody does that, it undermines their credibility as a journalist or in Juan’s case, a news analyst for NPR. Those two things cannot go together.

Q: Have you done this before with other analysts or reporters?

A: It’s impossible to answer that. Every circumstance is different and would create false parallels.

Q: As you mentioned, Mara Liasson appears on Fox News. Is there an issue with Fox News?

A: No. She behaves on Fox as a journalists. I have no issues with anything she has said on Fox. This is not about Fox News. It’s not about a political agenda. This is not about even validating or invalidating [Williams'] feelings.

Is that really so hard to believe? I can think of plenty of professions where publicly expressing your personal opinions could undermine your professional work.

During the luncheon, she repeated much of what she told me.

“We are for civil liberties,” she said. “If you want to be a political activist, you may not also be a reporter or news analyst for NPR.”

Schiller also said it’s “sophomoric” to deride objectivity as a lie of omission, that hiding a journalists’ biases is a bad thing: “Yes, we are humans. We have opinions. None of us are impartial, that objectivity and absolute truth as concepts are unattainable. It does not follow that providing the most objective and most impartial work possible is not a worthy goal for professional journalists.”

She continues: “This is where the Juan Williams story enters. We have checks and balances to serve that goal. That’s why we have editors. We have an ombudsman and corrections. It’s why we let readers comment on stories. It’s why we run opinions and commentaries and label them as such. Commentaries are different from news analysis. It’s certainly why we practice journalism and prohibit journalists from certain activities, not just to protect the appearance of objectivity… it’s to protect the ideal of fair-minded journalism… People have strong opinions and professional journalists have developed procedures and standards and practices to counter them. It’s to draw a fine line between reporter and commentary and punditry.”

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

You have to be kidding me. Back to the tired old game of "vilify the other side when you have no argument of your own". Grow up.

I dont have a side, I dont have a dog in this fight...I dont like Juan Williams and I never listen to NPR. I made my response based on a comment someone made that was ridiculous, which I in turn made ridiculous as well. The ACLU boogeyman BS comes up all the time, mostly by White Christian Conservatives upset that Non-Christians might not like how Christian certain times of year are and would like it toned down.

But hey since this has nothing to do with you, you can feel free to take your own advice and grow up or just butt out.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

It has everything to do with his personal politics - maybe not for you, but it definitely does for NPR execs. He was not fired because the quality of his work for NPR had gone downhill. He was fired for expressing how he felt in a particular situation.

Let me clarify - it has nothing to do with the content of his personal politics. You're right, however: he was fired because expressing his personal opinions taints his role as a journalist.

This is about the wall between commentary and analysis, between journalism and punditry.