Whoa, Big Red— C-span is NOT a government-funded service, nor should it be. The cable business which supports it is going through some changes, but let's not get all grabby, OK? The whole point of this is that government command of media is BAD.

This is a weird time in human history... Nobody thinks ANYTHING can happen without command and support from the federal government. Patty thinks "Public libraries are a federal government program."

It's lunacy. No one can imagine having any impact on civilization without Washington... And that includes most conservatives.

I saw on the news a report about two women getting yelled at. There was an interview with one of them and she says "We are American. I have lived her 12 years. I have blended in. I never thought this could happen. We are no different from you." It was not clear if her face was covered - they were hiding her identity for her protection - but otherwise she was definitely covered from head to two. My thought, you have not blended in, you are different than most of us.

> I think it's important that we remain
> informed about what's going on in
> government.

If there's a reason to hate NPR, it's that they agree with you. Almost EVERY story is about government... Or the failure of government to alleviate the suffering of some little wretch out there.

Look, even if you don't believe in God, there's more to life than government.

The 9/11 hijackers were dressed as westerners. Not in traditional Muslim garb. Juan Williams is a dumbass.

Dabul sobs uncontrollably:

For saying out loud what many Americans think--that he gets nervous when he's on a plane and sees people dressed in traditional Muslim garb.

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! And let's resort to the use of weasel words right away, shall we?

Juan Williams should have known better. He's a dope.

I wanted to find footage on youtube of the comments that actually got Juan Williams fired. Haven't found it yet, but I did find all kinds of people weighing in on the issue, such as this bright young fellow. I wonder if he thinks we live in America.

Here's his actual statement.

Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Gee, why would he preface his remarks with "I'm not a bigot"? Who is he trying to convince?

I wonder if he gets nervous about Japanese-Americans enlisting in the Air Force. Dumbass.

Patrick sticks up for another chic PC victim group:
I wonder if he gets nervous about Japanese-Americans enlisting in the Air Force.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I wonder how many Japanese Americans dream of reviving kamikaze attacks against America.

Dumbass
- - - - - - -
Indeed.

Free speech means that even if he IS a bigot, he's entitled to spew - and others are free to reply.
Remember?

NPR has been losing me for years...now i have another reason to NOT donate during pledge "weak", er weeks.

I always wondered if NPR's competitor's resent the fact that they receive gov't funding directly from US taxpayers(indirect funding from you and i), have multiple pledge drives (direct funding from people who choose to throw their personal $ to them), still sell plenty of advertising...AND do they pay income taxes at all -or are they another "non profit?" Makes me wonder...

If they are in muslim garb, they are pretty fundamentalist muslims. The sort that do follow the quoran (or at least, what their imam tells them) strictly. Most likely including that inconvenient little Verse of the Sword.

This is just a little more proof that offending muslims is defacto illegal, unlike offending any other group on the planet.

Ben David: I wonder how many Japanese Americans dream of reviving kamikaze attacks against America.

And I wonder how many Muslims dream of committing suicide by flying a passenger plane into a building...

Probably not many. Most of the Muslims I know just want to live their lives in peace, same as the rest of us.

But of course, if you're convinced that's the secret dream of every Muslim, not much I can do with that. Since the science of mind-reading hasn't been perfected, you're entitled to all the paranoid fantasies you want.

Ben David: Free speech means that even if he IS a bigot, he's entitled to spew - and others are free to reply.
Remember?

And freedom of association means that if NPR wants to fire his dumb ass for his comments on O'Reilly, they can!

Remember?

But of course, I have to remember whom I'm wasting my time replying to: someone who compartmentalizes every segment of the population. In other words: a bigot.

Patrick write: Gee, why would he preface his remarks with "I'm not a bigot"? Who is he trying to convince?

Because anythime you say something that isn't purely politically correct, some idiot is going to accuse you of being a bigot. It's inevitable. I swear, I could point out that most black people have darker skin that most white people, and someone would call me a racist.

So here's a guy saying that he, personally, is bothered by traditional muslim garb. So what? I personally find large numbers of facial piercings disturbing. I am sure that there is something that bothers you.

The guy was expressing a personal opinion. His preferatory remarks show that he knew someone would try to read more into it. Sure enough...

The guy was in a discussion where personal opinions were appropriate, and he expressed one. For this they fired him? Of all possible employers, surely NPR is one that should stand for freedom of expression?

Juan Williams has some concern about Muslims, considering the threats by Muslim extremists and the widespread tolerance and support of violent jihad among the Muslim communities of the world. Williams expressed his mild, rational reaction.

I will guess why NPR become so upset. For 50 years, one pillar of the Liberal justification for a big government and control of business is the need to control pervasive racism, as Liberals see it. They say "You are a racist if you have one bad thought related to the race, gender, etc. of anyone you meet. You are racist if you subconsciously think of such a person as different from anyone else."

The aim is to convince every person that he is a racist, and that his employer is a racist, to justify detailed and pervasive control and remedies. The irony is that no one is innocent by that standard, including the Liberals selling this message. The racism that almost everyone deplores has been implemented by government power (such as in the southern US). Mere thoughts are almost never a problem.

Another irony is that a truly racist country would not have empowered the government to block racism.

When the very prominent, moderate, liberal Juan Williams said that he had these rational thoughts and fears, Liberal groups reacted strongly and quickly. If William's thoughts were tolerated, then all of our similar thoughts would be acceptable.

People might look at each other and conclude that they aren't all racists after all. Liberal doctrine would lose a lever of power.

- -
Thomas Sowell pointed out that southern streetcar companies before 1900 did not discriminate against blacks, but did separate smokers and non-smokers. Separation by smoking met a market need. Separation by color would have angered customers with no increase in profit.

Further, streetcar companies resisted state and city laws requiring discrimination and separated seating.

So, if companies have to pay for their discriminatory intent, they would rather have the money than be discriminatory. Competition opposes discrimination, other than for rational economic reasons.

Discrimination in the south on streetcars and buses only took hold after the government bought and monopolized those services. Those governments then imposed separate seating regardless of the cost.

Does this sound familiar? Government imposes a monopoly (rules and regulations), then enforces them regardless of the cost. People forget that oppressive, effective discrimination was only possible through government power.

Thomas Sowell (search for "When streetcars")

Reminds me of Jesse Jackson's comment about feeling more comfortable if the men following him were white.

Hey Patrick, you never got back to us on which branch of the federal government makes the public libraries happen. For a man as concerned about Palin's suppressive tendencies as you appear to be ("when she has your favorite books thrown into a bonfire", etc.), the mechanics of all this must be a big topic for you. Care to give us the deets?

Or can just we jump to the part about summarily calling someone a dumbass and a dope?

Remember, Patrick: An essential skill is modern discourse is spinning into a name-calling, spittle-flying rage in over the course of just a couple of seconds... People find that very convincing!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaand..... GO!

And I wonder how many Muslims dream of committing suicide by flying a passenger plane into a building...[.]

At least 20.

And freedom of association means that if NPR wants to fire his dumb ass for his comments on O'Reilly, they can!

Not if he has a contract...which he does.

Let's see...

Juan Williams is a regular contributor to Fox News, but his day job is on NPR. His contract with NPR allows him to pursue side gigs, including paid appearances on Fox News.

George Soros gives NPR $1.8 million. George Soros also gives a substantial amount of money to Media Matters and earmarks it specifically for MM to go after Fox News.

A few days later, NPR fires Williams for comments he made while on Fox News. Think any other NPR employees (or potential NPR employees) will ever appear on Fox News?

>> And freedom of association means that
>> if NPR wants to fire his dumb ass for
>> his comments on O'Reilly, they can!

> Not if he has a contract...which he does.

Especially when that contract is held by the American taxpayers, and merely executed by NPR, which is presumably the model. The visciousness of the Schiller's "psychiatrist" comments demonstrate convincingly that she thinks her own beating heart is the center of global righteousness. But the money comes from others, who might have something to say about her in the days ahead.

I would argue that the removal of C-Span would go a long way toward getting the pompous a$$e$ of the Senate to quit their posturing and do their jobs. Audio only, please.

And freedom of association means that if NPR wants to fire his dumb ass for his comments on O'Reilly, they can!

Hope they enjoy the wrongful termination lawsuit. Unless his contract has a provision allowing NPR to terminate at will, they're gonna find themselves up a creek. Without a paddle.

Wonder if SEIU will come out and protest this illegal termination?

@Patrick - Is it just me, or are you getting more self-righteous and intolerant? Are you depressed because progressivism is getting the kick in the balls it so richly deserves?

@IRA - Why should Williams bother with NPR? He just signed a big deal with Fox News. Ailes is many things, but he's not dumb. He had Juan on there in the first place because people like him - even when they disagree with him so much they want to put their fist through the TV.

And Boehlert (of Media Matters for Soros) is already going after Mara Liasson - the only other NPR talent that also appears on Fox.

Remember, to the progressive left Fox News (actually, Rupert Murdoich's empire) is the only biased news source on Earth.

And I wonder how many Muslims dream of committing suicide by flying a passenger plane into a building...

Because Allah commands it? well, then, all of the true believers. How many are those? care to count?

Why is it, when some nutjob Christian goes off, all of Christianity is required to distance themselves from the nutjob? but when a Muslim nutjob goes off, it's "he was a lone wolf" and "he acted alone" and "we can't blame all of Islam", even as Islam does nothing to discourage the next lot from going off.

And many adherents of Islam cheer them on.

@IRA - Why should Williams bother with NPR?

They have deep pockets, and watching them squirm on a hook may be entertaining to him. They may just roll over and offer a settlement. I dunno about you, but money is money, and I'm not inclined to leave much of it on the table.

Conan, yes, Juan Williams did have a contract with NPR. And that would be a contract that he violated.

Did you bother looking up NPR's Code of Ethics? I did. While I would consider it excessively strict, no one Juan Williams to join them. That's their rules and he broke them. You don't like the rules? Don't work for NPR. That simple.

You can find the relevant parts here.

Under, V, 10, we read:

In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows[,] electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

Like I said, I will not dispute that that's excessively rigid, but Juan Williams should have been aware of this when he signed up with NPR in the first place. And by signing on, he agreed to abide by these rules. He broke them. He paid the price.

brian: Is it just me

Yes.

I read elsewhere that it was less this particular comment being so far beyond the pale than this comment being the final straw with NPR and Williams. This seems accurate - I'm surprised they stuck with him after his comparing Michelle Obama to "Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress".

I'm don't think I'm going out on a limb here, but I think it's probably an impossible position for someone to be simultaneously employed as a political commentator by Fox News, which pursues a populist conservative agenda, and NPR, which is generally the voice of liberal eggheads. If you want to get noticed on Fox, you gotta go after the Muslims; if you want to stay on NPR, you can't go around admitting your prejudices people.

This is just a little more proof that offending muslims is defacto illegal, unlike offending any other group on the planet.

No, thou shalt also not cast aspersions upon Jewish people (see Sanchez, Rick).

So how come NPR was able to air Sarah Spitzer's death wish for Rush? NPR can air a non-NPR employee's (sort of) views sans problem?

And that would be a contract that he violated.

So you've read the contract?

Under, V, 10, we read:

In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows[,] electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

emphasis Patrick's

So all of Williams' past appearances on Fox Shows met those criteria, but this one, immediately following that big donation by George Soros, did not?

This firing was not about Williams or his comments. It was about intimidating other NPR commentators (like Mara Liasson) into severing all ties with Fox News.

Apparently NPR's code of ethics do not apply to all their journalists equally - the only difference between them and Juan is that he was 1) black and 2) worked also for Fox News.

This was NPR's only black journalist, and on its face he appears to have been held to a higher standard of ethics then all the others employed there - since they weren't very even handed in their application of the COE.

You either enforce the COE for all, or you don't. Here's a list of quotes from Nina Totenberg from NPR, if the standards were equally enforced, shouldn't she have been fired too?

“I hope he’s not long for this world” said about Gen. William Boykin 2003

“If there’s retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it.” said about Sen Jesse Helms 1995

NPR is going to have a large suit on their hands, and rightfully so. Especially with the whole "keep it between him in his shrink line" - which was seriously slanderous.

Wonder how NPR's pledge week is going so far????

IRA: Because Allah commands it? well, then, all of the true believers. How many are those? care to count?

Really? Allah commands that Muslims fly planes into buildings? Wow. That Quran was ahead of its time, that's for sure.

The Quran I know of makes it a sin to commit suicide, and doesn't make allowances for doing so while taking some of the supposed enemy with you.

Conan: This firing was not about Williams or his comments. It was about intimidating other NPR commentators (like Mara Liasson) into severing all ties with Fox News.

Prove it.

Ah yes....the old "Prove it" comeback. You are quite entertaining, Patrick, you know.

No, of course the Koran doesn't command the flying of planes into buildings; it merely commands the slaughter of unbelievers without specifying the manner/method of slaughter. Hijacking civilian aircraft in order to fly them into buildings was, shall we say, creative license by the terrorists. Certainly in keeping with the "spirit" of the Koran, though.

The whole beef regarding NPR is two fold (in my opinion, which I'm stating up front so don't come back with "prove it"): 1) They are receiving tax dollars, albeit for a very small percentage of their budget, but as such should not be supporting such a clearly liberal agenda on the taxpayers' dime.

And 2) What Williams said was arguably far less inflammatory, opinionated punditry than SO much more of NPR's schtick, that the hypocrisy is glaring.

Yeah, I'm wondering myself how the fundraising is going...

Look here Child:

NPR’s Ombudsman Says Juan Williams Firing ‘Poorly Handled"

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/10/22/nprs-ombudsman-says-juan-williams-firing-poorly-handled/?mod=google_news_blog

Prove it.

If I use the standards of proof you applied to Sarah Palin in the Great Wasilla Book Burning, I don't actually have to prove it. I just have to show what they're thinking. Wanting to do something is as bad as actually doing it.

According to Politico:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=292C930E-18FE-70B2-A80034BAF0C10E5F

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party. [emphasis mine]

According to the same Politico article, "NPR officials were 'in a bind' because [Williams] is not a full-time NPR employee and instead works on a contract that gives him broad latitude over his non-NPR work." [emphasis mine] So the NPR Employee Code of Ethics might not apply to him.

NPR has been wanting to fire Juan Williams for some time

"Williams’ presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives." (exerpt from the report on the contract termination from NPR)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/npr-has-been-wanting-to-fire-juan-williams-for-some-time-105440113.html#ixzz137HguTh3

the other Beth, I'm glad I entertain you. I will soon find the collective obtuseness on this issue from the board rather tiresome myself.

Do we know for a fact that Juan Williams was fired because he appears on Fox? Or is that just idle speculation? No other possibilities? Has Juan Williams done this sort of thing before? Has he never been warned in the past about his commentary?

Oh, hell, no! to hear the commenters on this blog tell it. He was just as sweet as candy and the model NPR journalist prior to this incident. Never did a thing wrong a day in his life.

It was all because /foam, spit/ he appears on Fox, and NPR is /hiss, gnash/ going to get him for that! The bastards!

Still, I have to give credit where it's due. At least no one was idiotic enough to say it was because he's black.

Hey, baldy! Again, something so verifiable you can set your watch to it....you want to see true racism these days, watch a black man/woman go against the Left's narrative. You'll get all the foam, spitting and gnashing in the world.

Child.

The Quran I know of makes it a sin to commit suicide, and doesn't make allowances for doing so while taking some of the supposed enemy with you.

But several prominent (in the Middle East) imams and Islamic scholars have issued interpretations of the Quran that made such allowances. Much like Christian Europe before Johannes Gutenberg and Martin Luther, the mostly illiterate population of the Middle East relies on scholars to interpret the Quran for them. Thus, the current popularity of suicide bombing.

According to Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, "This has nothing to do with suicide. This man does not want to commit suicide, but rather to cause great damage to the enemy, and this is the only method he can use to cause such damage. Since this method did not exist in the past, we cannot find rulings about it in the ancient jurisprudence. We may find rulings about plunging into the [ranks of the] enemy and risking one's life, even in cases of certain death – so be it. The truth is that we should refrain from raising this issue, because doubting it is like joining the Zionists and Americans in condemning our brothers in Hamas, the Jihad, the Islamic factions, and the resistance factions in Iraq. It is as if we are joining them."

Juan talks with Don Imus here. I soooooo hope he sues Vivian Schiller personally and NPR generally.

P.S. Perhaps those Americans who have long taken Free Speech for granted will wake up to the fact that this door is quickly getting slammed shut by the likes of the Elitist Left and CAIR.

The other day it was announced on NPR that the Los Angeles PBS station KCET was ditching public broadcasting and going independent. It sounded like one big sigh of disappointment. (probably a fund raising tactic). Or maybe that was just how I heard it -- because for me, life has been one big disappointment. That's why Fox and NPR are so good. They never fail to disappoint you.

Patrick is one with NPR and the Progressive left in America. If someone says something bad about a conservative, well, they deserved it so no harm done. If someone says something about a progressive or any of their favored or protected groups, then they MUST BE PUNISHED SEVERELY FOR THEIR HERESY.

Progressives identify with Islamists because they share the same goal - the destruction of everything.

Brian: Patrick is one with NPR and the Progressive left in America.

Actually, I don't listen to NPR, and never have. But I do support the right to hire and fire.

As for the left, I voted against Obama and will continue to do so. But the left doesn't scare me as much a religious-nutters who can't seem to keep their religion off of public policy. And somehow, the Right seems to be positively plagued with these types.

I'm a Christian myself, but somehow, I manage to keep my religious beliefs off of the laws of our land. Laws should be concerned with what's orderly and disorderly. Autonomous humans should be allowed to progress as far as they can without encroaching upon the rights of other autonomous humans to do the same. And of course, protect the children. Beyond that, the individual is his own moral compass. You have your morality? Fine! Live by it, breathe it, eat it, smoke it...shit it for all I care. But don't ask for legislation to make your morality law for the rest of us.

But of course, to you, that's just leftism. You cannot see beyond liberal and conservative, and independents (like myself) do not exist for you. You must be doctrinaire conservative or you're a librul.

So, again, it's just you...

Conan: So all of Williams' past appearances on Fox Shows met those criteria, but this one, immediately following that big donation by George Soros, did not?

Or perhaps his comments on Fox were the proverbial last straw.

Problem (irony) is, Patrick, that the left, who claim to be so uber-sensitive, fair, progressive and tolerant--are the complete opposite of all of that. The firing of JW by the left-leaning media machine is simply a very clear and shining example of that hypocrisy.

Actually, I do think that his skin color may have had something to do with it--in that he is a black liberal (moderate) who (horrors!) consorted with Fox News. The fact that he works for Fox severely degrades the leftist argument that Fox is a huge conservative machine which only spews garbage, instead of, in fact, giving the liberal argument a chance to be heard as well.

Feebie makes an excellent point above concerning the sheer hatred that is directed towards a black person who doesn't tow the (liberal) party line. Condi Rice, anyone?

The silence of the NAACP is deafening. The NAACP protects only those afro-americans with whom they ideologically agree.

"Condi Rice, anyone?"

OR

Clarence Thomas
Michael Steel
Allan West
Kenneth Gladney
JC Watts

Some of the worst politically incorrect statements and horribly vile racist comments I've heard in recent times have come from the left when THAT BLACK MAN (or Uncle Tom) has the NERVE to walk off OUR plantation without permission!

The firing of JW by the left-leaning media machine is simply a very clear and shining example of that hypocrisy

We've seen a number of prominent media figures fired recently due to their public comments, some who are favored by conservatives, some who are favored by liberals: Juan Williams, Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr. The firings of the latter two were widely cheered by the conservative commentariat who are now railing against Williams' firing. The difference being that they agree with Williams. All of the media organizations that fired these people have brands they seek to protect; like any other organization, they distance themselves from those who hurt the brand and overlook things from those whom they view as good for their brands. Hence, why Fox did not fire Kilmeade for his "all terrorists are Muslims remark."

Or perhaps his comments on Fox were the proverbial last straw.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they were the opening for which his opponents had been waiting ever since Obama declared war on Fox News and set about turning other news outlets against them.

Other Beth and Feebie might have a point in their allegation of a double standard. Nina Totenberg's decidedly beyond-the-pale comments never caused even the slightest indication of concern with NPR executives. Granted, she made them on other NPR outlets, not on Fox, but wishing a horrible death on a public figure is not exactly the "fact-based analysis" standard that NPR insists Williams violated and for which it terminated his contract.

Mara Liasson better watch out.

...and independents (like myself) do not exist for you.

Patrick, the perception of you as a liberal stems from several points.

While you maintain that you are an independent, you seem to reserve your vitriol (at least on this blog) for figures on the right side of the political spectrum. You ignore MSNBC's blatant bias but jump at any chance to attack Fox News. You ignore Harry "I Saved the World from a Financial Meltdown" Reid's idiocy to attack Sharron Angle's.

You condemn the objects of your anger for their beliefs and thoughts, even if their actions do not advance an agenda of those beliefs (e.g., Palin asked about removing books from the library, but never actually took any steps to do so - yet you condemn her as a book burner).

That's a typical lefty argument style. "He's a racist" - even if he never made any attempt to dismantle desegregation or deny someone their civil rights. It's what's in his heart that matters.

Those are the same thought process blinders that let Al Franken get away with calling his opponents racists or sexists or homophobes and ignore his own record of making disparaging comments about Native Americans, homosexuals, the menstrual cycle of Newt Gingrich's daughter, or his own record of offending and excluding African-Americans.

When we see you attack Keith Olberman with the same vigor with which you attack Bill O'Reilly, then your claims of political independence will gain some credence.

@Christopher:

Sorry...not following...the remark saying "all terrorists are Muslim" is wrong, how, again? Probably a more accurate statement would have been "In modern times, 99 percent of terrorists are Muslim" but still--pretty darn close.

Why is it a problem to state a fact? To say that all Muslims are terrorists is inaccurate. To say that nearly all (modern) terrorists are Muslim, however, is an incontrovertible truth. Uncomfortable, perhaps, but still the truth. Why can we not call a spade a spade?

other Beth, the only irony I see is in this statement: The fact that he works for Fox severely degrades the leftist argument that Fox is a huge conservative machine which only spews garbage, instead of, in fact, giving the liberal argument a chance to be heard as well.

You vilify the left because of their supposed view of Fox News, which apparently is so unfair to you. Yet, when reading your comments on the left, you have views at least as poisonous about the left that you claim the left has about Fox. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your views, which need no further proof since you stated them yourself, are even more pernicious than the ones you claim - unproven - that the left has about Fox.

And the irony is that you can't even see it.

You said, that the left "claim to be so uber-sensitive, fair, progressive and tolerant--are the complete opposite of all of that."

Really? The complete opposite of that, huh? So, instead of "uber-sensitive," the left is consummately callous? Instead of "so...fair," their grotesquely unfair. Instead of "so...progressive," they're positively neanderthal. Instead of "so...tolerant," they're monumentally intolerant, veritable Nazis!

This we know you believe. You just said so. They're the complete opposite of the imagine that (you claim) they want to portray.

Now, this is what you say the left believes about Fox: that it's "a huge conservative machine which only spews garbage."

So, according to you, the left is consummately callous, grotesquely unfair, absolutely neanderthal and monumentally intolerant. We know you believe this. You said it.

Given a choice, I'd rather have Fox. Neither one of them seems all that great, but Fox would be most definitely the lesser of the two evils.

I find it very difficult to take you seriously. You're resorting to Brian-esque hysterics. Your views on the left are tantamount to his "Progressives identify with Islamists because they share the same goal - the destruction of everything" nonsense.

Why would anyone, much less millions of people, want to destroy everything? Why become monarch of all you survey if there is nothing to survey?

If you could possibly adjust your Mel-o-dra-Matic down to about 3, I might be able to have an exchange with you. I'm guessing currently it's about at 20, while the numbers on the dial only go to 10.

Conan: That's a typical lefty argument style. "He's a racist" - even if he never made any attempt to dismantle desegregation or deny someone their civil rights. It's what's in his heart that matters.

Um, duh?

Don't get me wrong, Conan. I consider you to be a very intelligent person, and you are able to discuss the issues without devolving into hysteria. But your dilemma is positively droll.

Once their designs dictate what is in their heart, that's all the justification anyone needs to object to their presence in the public forum. So Sarah Palin was unsuccessful in her bid to censor books. Would you rather elect her, and find out the hard what she can succeed in banning? We already know that the first amendment does not pose any kind of ethical dilemma for her. I'd rather elect someone who respects it, thanks. I'm not going to trust public outcry or the courts to keep her in check. Those of us who are waiting for the repeal of Don't Ask; Don't Tell and the ban that existed prior to that can give you some idea of just how long that can take. St. Sarah of Wasilla is a dodged bullet.

Forgive me for saying so, but the first thing that came into my when I read this was some of my liberal friends on another message board. It seems that they objected vehemently when I said what should be obvious: the sitting president is an anti-white racist.

At once, the challenges arose.

"Why is some of his cabinet made up of white people?"

"What policies can you point to of his that favor blacks and disfavor whites?"

There is no need to satisfy or answer any of those challenges. He attended the services of privileged race-baiter and and anti-white racist Jeremiah Wright for 20 years.

Who sits lapping to racist bile dripping from the pulpit for 20 years unless they're a racist? What was Obama doing there? Research on race relations for his thesis? Somehow, I don't think so.

I don't need to answer those questions. I have satisfied myself that Obama is a racist. Demands for further proof are simply the left's collective effort to deny what they already know. Had a white person been attending a white supremacist's services for 20 years, the left would bring the tar and feathers.

I was so happy when this story broke. I mean, I feel bad for Mr. Williams and all, but this is just perfect! On the eve of a major election where conservatives can take back the House and Senate and get rid of all of this liberal crap...and now we are handed a gift from NPR!

First, let me say I abhor NPR. They should lose their public funding due to their obvious bias. I will be shouting in the streets when NPR dies a nice slow death. Everyone has always known they are nothing but a liberal government funded bunch of progressives, but now they have been called out ala ACORN! Yay!

What a conundrum for the NAACP and for the ACLU! By Monday we will see FoxNews calling out both of them. The NAACP is so screwed if it supports Williams, which it should, and yet equally screwed if it does not. The ACLU, which would typically back lawsuits on free speech that are similar to this, will do nothing and say nothing. What a bunch of loony left hypocrites!

I love it!

But of course, to you, that's just leftism. You cannot see beyond liberal and conservative, and independents (like myself) do not exist for you. You must be doctrinaire conservative or you're a librul.

Do you wake up in the morning and say to yourself "How can I be completely wrong today?". Because you are.

First, you believe that the Right is controlled by some religious cabal that lives to impose its morality on you. Evidence? Beyond abortion and gay marriage, you have none.

Meanwhile, the progressive left acts just like the straw-conservative that lives in your head. They use laws, regulations and judicial fiat to impose THEIR morality on the public, regardless of how that public feels about it. They ostracize and excommunicate the heretics. They engage in shallow race-baiting to control their subjects. (this applies to pretty much every single one of their "moral equivalent of war" crusades from race relations to environmentalism).

But it's only the right that you see this in. You, sir, are a textbook progressive. Because LITERALLY EVERYTHING a progressive says is projection.

Conan: Other Beth and Feebie might have a point in their allegation of a double standard. Nina Totenberg's decidedly beyond-the-pale comments never caused even the slightest indication of concern with NPR executives. Granted, she made them on other NPR outlets, not on Fox, but wishing a horrible death on a public figure is not exactly the "fact-based analysis" standard that NPR insists Williams violated and for which it terminated his contract.

This first. I didn't say that was the NPR's justification for the firing of Juan Willams. Let's be clear on that. I said that he violated the employees' code of ethics and cited this rule. That is adequate justification for firing. But I never posted any such statement of NPR's claiming that that was the reason.

And wishing a horrible death on someone is certainly not nice. In fact, it's downright ugly. But not as ugly as demonizing an entire population, which is what Juan Williams' remarks amounted to.

I have less problem with attacking a public figure whose views we know, than millions of total strangers that we know nothing about, except the fact that they call themselves Muslim.

I mean, I feel bad for Mr. Williams and all, but this is just perfect!

I will say that I never felt bad for Juan Williams. I knew that Fox would take care of him. I figured NPR was fucked for pulling such a stupid stunt, and maybe Juan and many other left-leaners will finally have the scales fall from their eyes and realize who their friends are.

Patrick - if the muslims are so worried about being demonized, perhaps they should do something about the terrorists their religion keeps spawning.

I'm just sayin'.

Brian: Do you wake up in the morning and say to yourself "How can I be completely wrong today?". Because you are.

Only to those who hear words I didn't say.

Brian: First, you believe that the Right is controlled by some religious cabal that lives to impose its morality on you. Evidence? Beyond abortion and gay marriage, you have none.

Gee, wouldn't abortion and gay marriage be enough? To say nothing of their effort to keep gays from serving in the military and gay rights in general? How about their stance on the use of drugs, such as marijuana, even for medicinal purposes?

And I never said that the right was controlled by a religious cabal. I said they were plagued by religious-nutters who seek to impose their morality on the rest of us. And they are. Perhaps you've heard of the Religious Right.

Note the operative word is "plagued," not "controlled."

Like I told the other Beth, can you tone down the Mel-O-Dra-Matic just a tad?

Sorry...not following...the remark saying "all terrorists are Muslim" is wrong, how, again?

It's wrong because there are prominent, modern, non-Muslim groups responsible for terrorist attacks - the IRA and ETA come to mind immediately.

"And wishing a horrible death on someone is certainly not nice. In fact, it's downright ugly. But not as ugly as demonizing an entire population, which is what Juan Williams' remarks amounted to."

You. Must. Be. Joking.

other Beth: Sorry...not following...the remark saying "all terrorists are Muslim" is wrong, how, again?

*Scott Roeder
*Timothy McVeigh
*Hutaree Christian Militia Group
*The Ku Klux Klan
*Communist Army of the Philippines
*Paul Hill
*Brenda Kaye Phillips
*Tamil Tigers
*about 170 abortion clinics and doctors offices receiving threatening letters claiming to contain anthrax in 2001
*Stephen John Jordi
*Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe
*Eric Rudolph
*Ted Kaczynski
*The Aryan Republican Party
*American Nazi Party
*Christian Identity
*Silent Brotherhood
*The Contras

I could probably find some more, if you like. Like Brian Kilmeade (who really should confine his commentary to sports), you seem to live in a box. You hear more about Muslim terrorists, because it more directly concerns us, therefore you arrive at the -- to be blunt -- idiotic idea that "all terrorists are Muslims" is even remotely close to the truth.

Gee, wouldn't abortion and gay marriage be enough? To say nothing of their effort to keep gays from serving in the military and gay rights in general? How about their stance on the use of drugs, such as marijuana, even for medicinal purposes?

And with the exception of abortion, the Democrats have the same positions. Or haven't you read the decision in Raich v. Gonzales?

And I never said that the right was controlled by a religious cabal. I said they were plagued by religious-nutters who seek to impose their morality on the rest of us. And they are. Perhaps you've heard of the Religious Right.

Well, doesn't that make the Democrats actually worse then? I mean, they are outright controlled by THEIR religious nutters. I mean how else can you explain their positions on Cap and Trade, Nationalized health care? (yeah, spare me, alright? They wanted it (see: Lynn Woolsey, et. al.) but even Obama know it wouldn't fly). And they are SUCCESSFULLY imposing their morality on us, whereas the Republicans have no chance of so doing.

You seem to be under the impression that the Democrats are somehow superior because their particular religion worships the Earth-mother instead of a dude in the sky.

I'm not the drama queen here, pal.

Oh, and as far as organized terrorist organizations, the muslims have far greater numbers, and a far higher death and damage toll. So while "all terrorists are muslims" is factually incorrect, it's near as makes no odds the truth.

Your life == FAIL.

Brian, I guess the hysteria-o-matic isn't going to be toned down any time soon, huh?

Child.

So Sarah Palin was unsuccessful in her bid to censor books.

Sarah Palin never made a bid to censor books. She asked if was possible and did nothing more. And the person who brought this to light was an ardent and open supporter of her opponent.

There's a big difference in electing someone who believes something not in sync with current laws but upholds the existing law and/or tries by lawful methods to get the law changed and electing someone who holds their beliefs to be absolutely right and the law and the rest of the population be damned.

Palin didn't ask about how to remove those books from the Wasilla Barnes & Noble. Just about how to remove them from the taxpayer-financed public library. Nothing about preventing people from getting them via Amazon, B&N, or other sources.

Do I agree with her on this? No. Does book censorship/banning bother me? Yes. But this is only one small aspect of the job she did as mayor.

In electing politicians, you take the good with the bad. We rarely have saints running for office. By most reports, Palin was a decent mayor overall; not everyone's cup of tea on every issue, but not the disaster her opponents would like her to have been.

And she didn't try to ban books as governor either. She didn't even ask about it.

Personally, I'm less concerned about Palin's objections to some books than I am about Obama appointing policy czars in defiance of Congressional oversight.

...he violated the employees' code of ethics and cited this rule. That is adequate justification for firing.

Juan Williams was not an employee of NPR. He was an independent contractor (see my earlier post or the article linked to it). The employee Code of Ethics may not be applicable.

And wishing a horrible death on someone is certainly not nice. In fact, it's downright ugly. But not as ugly as demonizing an entire population, which is what Juan Williams' remarks amounted to.

No, they didn't. Williams simply admitted to getting nervous when he saw an obviously Muslim person getting on his plane.

I used to fly a lot (2-3 times a week) and, after 9/11, I, too, got a little nervous when Middle Easterners got on my plane. But I didn't demand their removal or ask for another flight. Logically I knew not every Middle Easterner or Muslim was trying to kill me. Still, given recent events, I couldn't help but be a little nervous.

It's human nature.

Williams didn't say Muslims should be removed or banned from flying. And later in the conversation he warned against demonizing an entire population based on the actions of a few.

Patrick - do you care to point out the so-called hysteria? Or is that outside the realm of your talking points memo from Axelrod this morning?

Brian - he has pathological projection issues.

brian, I'm mildly disinclined, to tell you the truth. I'm leaning more toward telling to you to basically fuck off.

I mean, what is your problem? I don't feel the need to tell you that your life is fail, even if I thought that were true. I don't wish you harm. And...until now...I had nothing but good wishes for you. I would have liked to have heard about how college life was doing for you. I seem to recall you have some problems meeting a nice girl. Now, I basically don't give a shit.

Maybe you know why that is...or can guess.

I don't believe that liberals or conservatives or Muslims seek the destruction of everything. That's idiotic. And yes, hysterical.

Who wants to destroy everything? That's insane.

I don't feel the need to pigeonhole you and I'm perfectly content to allow you to be whatever political persuasion you claim for yourself. As opposed to this need to believe I'm a librul.

You're what's wrong with public discourse, dude. You remind of the those obnoxious signs that some of the marchers have carried to protests. Putting Hitler moustaches on pictures of Obama.

Do you imagine this does anyone any good?

The comment about Axelrod is another example. I don't get anything from Axelrod. I barely know who Axelrod is.

But by all means, let the hysteria continue. Just don't be too disappointed when I basically start ignoring you. You can say hi to Feebie when you reach the limbo of "No use for you."

Who wants to destroy everything? That's insane.

Millenialist Eschatologists, for one. And when you combine a religion that believes the end times can be triggered by the believers, and they are pursuing the technology that will allow them to do it, you need to take notice.

It's not hysterical. Iran has stated clearly that they intend to destroy Israel and America to bring about the return of the 12th Imam, which shall herald the end of times.

And I didn't call you a "librul", I called you a Progressive. Because Progressives don't believe that there are any existential threats that we aren't at fault for, somehow.

Oh, and you should do a little more research on that nazi signs at Obama rallies thing - that wasn't Republicans or conservatives with those signs.

brian, I'm mildly disinclined, to tell you the truth. I'm leaning more toward telling to you to basically fuck off.

Oh, and this is another reason why I call you a Progressive. Whenever you lose an argument, you resort to this same rhetorical dodge. It's tiresome.

Good evening. I have a Yankees game to watch.

as long as the muslim community does not ardently protest idiots like the leader of Iran, and terrorists, they all share the same blame. Fuck them

Brian, you didn't win any arguments, nor have a I lost any. I'm trying to discuss the issues, but every single time I bring up an issue, you make me personally the topic.

And, as always, you hear words I didn't say. I never said that Republicans or Conservatives were carrying those signs with the Hitler moustaches on Obama's face, now did I?

Lorne Gunter, a Canadian columnist, illustrates over & over & over how so many on the Left absolutely HATE Free Speech.

I've listened to a fair bit of what Palin has to say, and I don't remember anything about banning books.

Even about abortion, she said something that I think most pro-abortionists would dislike all that much.

I don't agree with a lot of what Juan has to say, but I respect him.

It was one thing to hope for awful things to happen to Jesse Helms, who seems like a jerk, but it's wrong to wish mean things on his grandcchildren.

And about abortion, Reagan once said something about, if we don't know if an unborn baby is a person, shouldn't we give it the benefit of the doubt?

Seems odd that NPR only had 1 black journalist.

And what's so wrong about admitting being nervous in those circumstances? He also said a lot of things about not treating Muslims badly.

Patrick seems slightly hysterical about this whole thing. Maybe a little defensive. Also wondering why you think the right is trying to impose Christian morals on you. But I'm beginning to just decide to skip most of what you write anyway.

If the Koran doesn't encourage stuff like suicide bombing, why does this type of thing happen so often?

I'm not trying to be mean about Muslims in general. I know several Muslims who are generally nice, decent people. But considering that it's only been Muslims who have been doing this stuff, Juan's concern seems understandable.

Why are we spending any federal money on NPR at all? The govt is in the red, it should economize where it can. Especially since NPR says that it doesn't need the money.

One thing about Fox News, they put people on both sides (liberal and conservative) on the show and let them speak.

Helen Thomas said that Israelies should "go back where they came from". Could she possibly be ignorant enough not to know that Israel is where they came from? It was such a rude, stereotypical racist statement.

"Helen Thomas said that Israelies should "go back where they came from". Could she possibly be ignorant enough not to know that Israel is where they came from? It was such a rude, stereotypical racist statement."

Helen Thomas at least has the justification that she is "probably" senile. What is Nina Totenberg's excuse?

> I would argue that the removal of C-Span
> would go a long way toward getting the
> pompous a$$e$ of the Senate to quit their
> posturing and do their jobs. Audio only, please.

I doubt it's true, but it's an interesting thought, and kind of what I was trying to get at with Amy. People are stressing government with far too much responsibility already. It’s not a new idea: As religion has faded as the source of virtue and passion in people's lives, people look to government as the arbiter and enforcer of decency and progress... People really believe that without government, their lives have no purpose or power. Having two or three channels of 24hr TV, however it might be hosted, is not helpful. (Nor are the tawdry ritual observances of NPR & PBS). But meantime it's good to be reminded how ugly these people really are... And how their bullshit plays with the people who phone into the talk programs.

> Is it just me, or are you getting more
> self-righteous and intolerant?

Not just you. I speak as heavily beribboned Pissmaster First Class, with Oak Leaf Cluster for Blog Service and fringe-y epaulets on the uniform; Patrick sets an unbeatably high standard.

> as always, you hear words I didn't say.

Our heads are swimming with fear!— We're terrified by the "bonfires" that the "monsters" are going to set at the federal government's public libraries! And now you're telling us to worry about "dumbass" who's a "dope", by which you mean, "[i]n other words: a bigot."

Some of us just can't spazz as deftly as, um, others.

Other Beth wrote: Probably a more accurate statement would have been "In modern times, 99 percent of terrorists are Muslim" but still--pretty darn close.

How are you defining "modern times?" Post-"the Troubles" in Ireland? Post-Timothy McVeigh? Can't be simply post-9/11 because I'm pretty sure those Anthrax attacks were never traced to a Muslim.

Also, worth a look-see: http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

Kris: I've listened to a fair bit of what Palin has to say, and I don't remember anything about banning books.

She pressed a librarian three times, the first time before she was even sworn in, about the protocol for removing books from the shelves.

According to a witness who was shocked by the question, she was told by the librarian that the book selection was based upon national standards for libraries of that particular size, and the librarian would "absolutely resist" any attempt to ban books.

When asked about the incident, Palin's camp offered some cockamamie reason about wanted to know about policies and procedures which doesn't begin to explain why she felt the need to ask three times.

Kris: Patrick seems slightly hysterical about this whole thing. Maybe a little defensive. Also wondering why you think the right is trying to impose Christian morals on you. But I'm beginning to just decide to skip most of what you write anyway.

Let me guess: Christian and right wing, right? Right to abortion doesn't count, huh? Gay marriage? Which Bush threatened to make as a constitutional amendment. How about the rights of gays to openly serve in the military?

What justification does any stance of the right have on these issues but Christian squeamishness?

As for skipping what I write, please do. Since every comment I've made in answer to your questions is simply repeating myself, you're striking me as somewhat dense. How many times do you need things explained to you?

I wonder if Gregg would be able to put a filter on this blog to allow the user to screen out certain IP addresses. I would certainly make use of it.

Crid: Our heads are swimming with fear!— We're terrified by the "bonfires" that the "monsters" are going to set at the federal government's public libraries! And now you're telling us to worry about "dumbass" who's a "dope", by which you mean, "[i]n other words: a bigot."

Some of us just can't spazz as deftly as, um, others.

Have no worries, Crid. You're still the board's spazzmeister. No matter what issue is discussed, I am still your favorite topic on this board. And without fail, your discussion becomes about me personally. Are you able to discuss anything on this board, anything at all, without talking about me personally?

Are you sure you're not gay? It's one possible explanation for your weird obsession. I should probably say something nice like, "I'm flattered," but I'm sure I could pull that off convincingly. I'll just have to be blunt and say I'm mildly repulsed by the idea.

Of course, one doesn't have to be gay to have a man-crush, or whatever it's called, but it doesn't make it any less unpalatable.

Kindly find some therapy for whatever it is that prompts you to act this way, and take your phone-pal Feebie with you.

Well, Patrick... Brian, Lovelysoul, Jody, Botu and others (anyone remember Cat Brother?) have enjoyed the spotlight over the years, but your nuttiness IS distinctive. Your anger at the world is so pure, so relentless. (There's a cartoon depiction, but unfortunately the classic episodes are copyright-protected.) The fascination isn't about anything gay. The impressive part, the part that travels so well over the internet, is the childishness: That annoyance –at untamed infantilism– crosses all erotic, generational, cultural, regional and religious boundaries. Amy's written books about it.

But it's not like a regional accent or an unusual kind of food or a weird headress: When gay folks present their identity as a childish demeanor, the damage to their own cause is irreversible and non-transferable. Thoughtful people will always ask Why can't this person (or less generously, these people) grow up a little?

You've mentioned your preference more often than anyone's mentioned anything... More often than the religious commenters mention God, more than the gun nuts mention bullets, more than the drinkers mention wine, more even than the Dubya haters mention Bush. I don't think you're typical, but if you're that eager to sell yourself as the quintessence of how the homosexual mind works, there are people who are ready, nay, eager, to believe it.

Now, about those federal libraries....

Crid: You've mentioned your preference more often than anyone's mentioned anything...

Bullshit.

Conan: No, they didn't. Williams simply admitted to getting nervous when he saw an obviously Muslim person getting on his plane.

That is demonizing an entire population.

Whenever I fly I always look around the plane for Muslims. It makes me nervous when I see them. I fly to DC alot, and i always wonder if the plane I'm on is the next terror target. It is the nature of terrorism to instill fear into the population. You and all the other liberals can stick your heads in the sand Patrick, and pretend that there is no problem and that it is not fair and that we are demonizing an entire population, but when I'm flying with my son to California and see a Muslim getting on the plane muttering under his breath you're damn right I'm paranoid. And I have pointed out to authorities suspicious looking Muslim folks before on flights.

You're a dumbass Patrick if you are more worried about rights and being unfair to a portion of the population than you are your own and 200 others personal safety. And all the liberal rhetoric in the world is not going to change anyone's mind on this.

Pull the plug on NPR.

I think we all should all thank Patrick for this great example of what is meant by "lunatic fringe". Bravo performance Patrick! You and people like you are what keeps dorks like Glenn Beck in business.

BTW, what I find most amusing about this whole exchange is that Patrick is taking up for the exact people who would, if given a chance impose tyrannical religious rule over this country. Most Muslims may not be terrorists, but they want to live under Sharia. Patrick, if you think life in this country, which is currently run mostly by Christians, is bad just wait to see what sharia law has in store for you and others of your "persuasion". Hey, I know! Why don't you head over to Iran with your current partner and make out in any city square. Let's see how they treat you. I'll bet they are just as concerned about your "feelings" as you are about theirs. Make sure you tell them as they are stoning you to death that were never afraid to fly with them. I am sure they will appreciate that.

Mike: Whenever I fly I always look around the plane for Muslims. It makes me nervous when I see them. I fly to DC alot, and i always wonder if the plane I'm on is the next terror target. It is the nature of terrorism to instill fear into the population. You and all the other liberals can stick your heads in the sand Patrick, and pretend that there is no problem and that it is not fair and that we are demonizing an entire population, but when I'm flying with my son to California and see a Muslim getting on the plane muttering under his breath you're damn right I'm paranoid. And I have pointed out to authorities suspicious looking Muslim folks before on flights.

I have this imagine now of you at a boarding gate, suspiciously and inconspicuously glaring every passenger and checking behind the ticket agent's desk, behind the waste basket, etc. looking for Muslims.

And if you find one, you go right to nearest security guard and give him an earful, outstretched arm indignantly pointing at the person you think is a Muslim, then finding out you've accosted an olive-skinned Greek, Italian, biracial or Hispanic.

Then as you board the plane, you fasten your suspicious gaze at everyone as you mill your way to your seat.

One wonders how many passengers you've made uncomfortable.

But by all means, be the self-appointed bloodhound to sniff out those terrorists. I will sleep so much better knowing you're on the job.

I am certain airport security has already screened what they consider potential terrorists, and I don't feel I'll be able to help them do their job.

If you're paranoid, then don't get on the plane. I don't get how being paranoid helps you if you still decide to get on the plane anyway. Any terrorists who plan on blowing up the plane will not sense your paranoia and decide not to do it.

"I am certain airport security has already screened what they consider potential terrorists, and I don't feel I'll be able to help them do their job."

Ya, those screeners did a real bang up job with the Christmas Day bomber (stopped by regular citizens), the shoe bomber (stopped by regular citizens) and the 19 terrorists with box cutters (one flight full of regular citizens heroically brought it down and averted a bloodbath at the capital).

But, THANK GOD they confiscate Nanna's knitting needles and put 6 year olds on a terrorist watch list because they share the same name as an IRA operative.

I have a friend who is a pilot and before he got his licensed he worked for the ground crew (loading and unloading luggage from SFO)...those bags don't get screened. Remote detonation by some swarthy soul on that very plane is a very real possibility.

As counterarguments go...

> Bullshit.

...isn't the most convincing. Are you at least ready to let go of the Federal Public Libraries thing? I'll always wonder where that came from... How you could put a period at the end of a sentence like that and jus' keep on goin'.

You want a lengthy explanation? Why? Your statement, "You've mentioned your preference more often than anyone's mentioned anything" was a bare-faced lie. Certainly not nearly as many times as you've mentioned me.

> You want a lengthy explanation?

A short one. Where did it come from? "Public libraries are a federal government program." How did those words appear to your soul?

That's an interesting article, Robert W. -- thanks for the link. I didn't know of Lorne Gunter before and haven't read anything by Margaret Atwood, but I was looking at the Wikipedia page of her book "Handmaid's Tale" and was startled by how the fictional events in the book mirror the mindset of post 9-11 paranoid Left (9-11 was really coordinated by U.S. and blamed on Muslims, etc.) Really weird. I wonder if Canada will survive the "hate-filled propaganda" of a Fox News North?

I was going to. In fact, I almost finished typing it up...but then I deleted it upon reconsideration. You didn't apologize for lying about the previous statement you made about me. Therefore you don't exactly deserve consideration. Or even civility for that matter. Sorry.

> Or even civility for that matter.

Like that "dumbass" Williams?

"How about the rights of gays to openly serve in the military?"

Minor derail here: there is no "right" to serve in the military. You are fundamentally not an individual when serving; you haven't, so it's OK that you don't know that.

Luv yoo, Raddy. This sensitivity to language will serve you always.

(If you want, you can obsess a couple times, without penalty, about the responsibility of Congress to declare war. Go ahead... Splurge.)

Oh, I'm still marveling at Patrick's auto-amplifying gland, or whatever it is that causes a leap past what was said to him to an absolute, of straw, at that.

Or even civility for that matter. - Patrick

Snort.

An arrogant, condescending fuck lecturing others about 'civility'.

That's rich.

Oh Patrick! Right through the heart! You really got me. Wow. Good one. High-five.

Maybe one of these days you, and people who think like you, will realize that the enemy is not us.

Uh, Raddy? I have served in the military. Four years. 97E (Interrogator/linguist), Top Secret Clearance with SCI. Fort Bragg, NC. Incidentally, I was Soldier of the Month and Soldier of the Quarter, too.

Now that that's out of the way, on subject of Juan Williams and dumbasses, let's hear from some bright protesters who called themselves "long time 'viewers'" of NPR, who, in protest of the firing of Juan Williams, say they're going to "stop watching."

There's no limit to what a man can make of his life if he puts in a few hours studying in our nation's Federal Public Library system.

> the worst politically incorrect statements
> and horribly vile racist comments I've
> heard in recent times have come
> from the left

It's good that someone's keeping a list.

You might want to start a blog, or establish some other internet presence which affords open-ended amendments to your data set. This ain't over.

Good to know that despite dire predictions of some on this blog, this apparently hasn't harmed NPR's fundraising efforts.

Jennifer Houlihan, a spokeswoman for New York Public Radio, said the issue “was not hurting” pledges. “We’re hitting or surpassing our goal at this point,” she said.

Yeah. Right... Over at NPR, they're glad it happened, especially that part about the "psychiatrist"... It was almost Patricksian in its infantile petulance.

There's a certain continuity of themes at work here.

Someday, Crid, you'll learn that disagreeing with you is not your call to arms.

I have no reason to believe you'll ever learn this, but I'm remaining optimistic.

It's not likely that anyone will ever let you assign them a "call to arms"... Though just for this evening, you can sit next to Lou, who always wants to tell people what their religion means to them.

Anyone remember Pelto? Why is it soldiers who brag on blogs about service to our country always seemed thereafter diminished in our admiration? And why is it that those who do this seem always to have been the masters of paperwork and wordplay, rather than the more soldierly, physical arts?

Don't ask me. I'm wondering why it's "bragging" to correct a misconception.

Possibly there's a guilt complex operating among some of those who haven't served. Remembering who I'm addressing, I got a hearty belly laugh out of the comment about those who supposedly served as one of the "masters of paperwork and wordplay, rather than the more soldierly, physical arts."

If it were my touchiness that had introduced the topic, you might be on to something. But listen, are we ever going to get an explanation of the libraries thing, or will I be able to tease you about it evermore?

Oh, your touchiness is definitely operating. Someone makes an inaccurate statement about me; I post the correction and it's supposedly because I'm "touchy" and "bragging."

Gee, I'm sorry that bothers you, Crid. Obviously, former servicemen are a sore spot for you!

Hey Patrick...I noticed you talked about your TS and SCI and being at Bragg and all. I am somewhat mortified that you would talk about your clearance on the unclassified network...don't you know that is a no-no? Or you just don't care? Even if the words TS and SCI are unclassified, don't you realize that with that little bit of information there are about a million chinese analysts that can put that together with other information you have given on this blog and find out where you live, all about your family, your phone number, and who you work for now????? They could target you easily by putting all of this information together, and then fill in some of those Muslim operatives in the little sleeper cells over here.

Hey everyone! This guy was in intel! Let's go pay him a visit! Soldier of the month? Easy to find that out with the information we already have on this guy! Interrogator? Must work with either CIA or PT folks down at Bragg...

you make it too easy.

Which shop at Ft. Bragg was that Patrick? I'm sure someone will find out. I know I could, easily.

Even if this is not your real name, are you stupid or what?

Folks, this is pretty chilling stuff. Be aware about where you are flashing your work history. You could end up a target like Patrick here will.

mike: Hey Patrick...I noticed you talked about your TS and SCI and being at Bragg and all. I am somewhat mortified that you would talk about your clearance on the unclassified network...don't you know that is a no-no?

No, it's not.

You're a total ignoramus.

Perhaps you should look at this article, by a person who /gasp/ gives his first and last names, Rod Powers. Look at all the information he gave about himself on that hyperlink on his name! /double gasp/

Note the following from the article:

For example, when I first enlisted into the Air Force into the Aircrew Life Support AFSC, the job required a SECRET clearance level. A few years later, however, I was considered for an assignment to a unit which required me to have a TOP SECRET clearance with SCI. Even before I knew I was being considered for the assignment, the Air Force initiated a TOP SECRET/SCI background check.

Notice again, he reveals he's held a SECRET Clearance and a TOP SECRET Clearance with SCI...just like mine.

As usual, you are totally missing the point you dumbass. As you can see, if you read my last post, it is NOT illegal, or even a security issue, to use the verbage TS, SCI, or any other designation until you get to some of the more compartmented programs. I call you out because you are putting information like that over the internet, which can then easily be put together with other, easily obtainable personal information. The end result is foreign operatives collection of all of this and then targeting you for any number of reasons, based upon the now public knowledge of your Air Force linguistics job....not to mention interrogation skills.

Not a national security issue, just a personal information security issue.

It is a standard briefing that all DoD and military take every year on protecting private information that can be used by terrorists (muslims) to target you and try to collect information.

As a current or former member of DoD you should know better than to make stupid comments and give out all of your private information. Even civilians keep their information better than that....

Mike, good try at saving face. Really.

When the Chinese come after me, I'll post on the board and say you were totally right.

But in the meantime, I'll just laugh at you for the ignoramus you are.

IRA and ETA come to mind immediately.

Posted by: Christopher

The ETA has killed less than 1000 people in its entire 40+yr existance. Plus they gave up about 2 months ago

Meanwhile one attack by muslims killed 3000+ people, and muslims have been in a militray expansion campaign scine its inception 1500 yrs ago

who always wants to tell people what their religion means to them.

Really, crid? You want to go on this again?

I dont tell people what their religion means to them, I tell them what their religion SAYS they are supposed to believe.

I can't wait for the next PBS fund-raising drives:

"Hello, I'd like to donate $200."

"That's great! What's your first name?"

"I'd like to donate, but I'm only going to if Juan Williams asks me to. Can you get Mr. Williams on the phone, please? I'll hold."

(Yes, I know PBS and NPR aren't the same thing but they're both under the CPB umbrella.)

Best quote ever from Debbie Schlussel's blog: "’I'd rather be a bigot with a plane that lands safely……. then a politically correct NPR worshiper with a blown up plane over the Atlantic."

Classic