Skip to main content

View Diary: Juan Williams Is Right: Political Correctness About Terrorists Must End! (306 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what history? (3+ / 0-)

    moore mentions one quote that happened about 10 seconds after the lines everyone is so upset about.  This is a history?  

    By that token, I have a "history" of disagreeing with you because I have two paragraphs here.

    I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

    by Guinho on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 07:29:08 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why the TR on MM? (14+ / 0-)

      Just curious to know if it was a mistake or not.

      hink

      Hyperbole will be the death of us all!

      by MrHinkyDink on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 07:57:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah - that's weird...nt (5+ / 0-)

        "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

        by grannyhelen on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:15:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  no mistake: he totally distorts Williams record (5+ / 0-)

        First, the quote he takes Williams to task for is ridiculous.  Moore would have us get outraged because Williams said Shahzad said "flood" and not "blood", especially in light of the fact that it was in fact reported as having been "blood"  Furthermore, if you actually read the trail court transcript, Shahzad was utterly clear that he sees his action as a war between Muslims and America, precisely as Willliams said.

        I'm sorry, but Williams report of Shahzad's comments were vastly more accurate than Moore's  i cannot abide by intentional distortion simply to gradnstand on the outrage du jour.

        i am tired of dishonest, disingenuos people trying to work the outrage of the crowd.  It is incredibly destructive and does no one a service.  I follow a zero tolerance policy.  I am a firmly committed member of the reality-based wing of the Democratic party.  We're practically extinct, but we are still out here.

        for the record, I don't give a shit about Williams, but the plague of distortion going on here is a disgusting campaign.

        I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

        by Guinho on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:19:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  adsf (17+ / 0-)

          I am a firmly committed member of the reality-based wing of the Democratic party.  We're practically extinct, but we are still out here.

          You are pretty full of yourself aren't you?

          "The role of the major media under our system is to promote the corporate agenda against all others. " ~ Gooserock @ KOS

          by basquebob on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:42:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yep (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BrooklynJohnny, Pozzo

            I have standards and I don't suffer nonsense well.  Someone has to keep folks honest.

            I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

            by Guinho on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 10:22:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yep (6+ / 0-)

              you are full of yourself. Best proof that someone is barely hanging onto reality is when they profess to be one of the few that really know it as in "We're practically extinct.." in your quote.

              "The role of the major media under our system is to promote the corporate agenda against all others. " ~ Gooserock @ KOS

              by basquebob on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 10:51:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well (0+ / 0-)

                when the whole of dailykos is going nuts over something that Williams didn't actually say, you have to wonder.

                I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

                by Guinho on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 03:21:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Big Ups, Guinho! Wish ya stayed true to your TR! (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pozzo, bfbenn, cdkipp

              As I said a few nights ago when this first broke, I am no NPR fan.  It's a boring, out of touch, pretentious, dweeby collection of folksy small-town USA drivel that has never shown even the slightest of backbone in standing up for progressives. The simple fact that they would ban reporters from joining the Sanity Rally but never issued any bans on joining up with the teabaggers, or even going on Faux News to begin with, is another laughable example of NPR's lack of street-cred.  

              I'm also no Juan Williams fan.  For the most part he comes off as a dimwitted moderate that like NPR itself, often makes true progressives look weak.  This is especially true when taking an Alan Colmes-like pattsy role in debating hate-mongers like O'really.

              The thing is, is that Williams was "trying" to defend the progressive side.  While O'realy was castigating all Arab Muslims and claiming that "Political Correctness" was keeping the rest of "us" from also castigating all Arab Muslims, Williams was trying to talk O'Really down from his salivating, xenophobic raves.      

              Yes, Williams misspoke the way he often does.  Yes, he admitted that seeing people in traditional Arab garb on planes makes him nervous.  But so what???  Everyone has irrational fears from time-to-time.  Admitting them is the first step in getting over those fears.    

              No, I do not like NPR or Juan Williams.  Secretly (well, not so secretly now) I'm glad that they both come off looking small through all of this.  But let's not pretend that Williams was ever at any point saying anything about acting on fears.  In fact, NOT acting on fear, seeing himself through whatever fears (irrational or even rational) he may have shows that Juan Williams is anything but an actual bigot.

              Finally, as much as I do not like NPR or Williams, I do loves me some D-Kos.  I'm also a fan of Michael Moore, Keith Olberman, and most of all, a HUGE Rachel Maddow fan as well.  Unfortunately, they're ALL wrong.  Very wrong.  In holier than thou fashion, they're all lining up to take shots at words taken out of context.  Then, like in the recently rec'd "I'm scared of coloreds" snark diary seen here, they use their own race cards to throw out utter garbage similar to the rubbish below:

              P.P.S. Here's something else that I'd sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can't let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?

              Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

              Jonathan Capehart, a fairly young, liberal, gay, black man and NOT some middle aged white guy was on TV defending Juan Williams.  He was on TV talking about his own fears when walking down the street alone.  Does Capehart get a pass (after all, he's not a middle aged white guy) or is he a bigot too???

              Unfortunately, as stated, Michael Moore isn't the only one to compare Juan Williams' statements with those made against blacks.  But what if Juan Williams instead had said that sometimes he gets nervous and fears white police officers?  What if he said that he had previously been traumatized by white cops and to this day he still sometimes gets nervous when around them.  Would he still be a bigot?  Would NPR still fire him and then shamefully also joke about Williams having to talk to a psychiatrist?  Would so many on the left join NPR in piling on?

              Or would the D-Kos and the greater progressive community instead feel bad for him?  Would they feel bad for what had happened while also hoping that one day he could come to trust the overwhelming and vast majority of honorable white police officers.

              More rubbish below:

              UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn't buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then -- for instance, "Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment ... Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me."

              The CLEAR difference between what Juan Williams said and what the jewelers did is that Juan never wanted any Arab Muslims banned from planes.  Pretty easy to understand, unless whipped into a frenzy of Political Correctness.  Sad that this whole hysteria has not only taken O'really off the hook for his truly bigoted comments but it has also left "Papa Bear" (as always, the real villain here) with even more "liberal media" non-stories to rant about in the days before November 2nd.  Nice work, guys!  Almost as nice as the 32 (and counting?) recs for the dude who earlier on this thread talked about the "demonizing" of attempted mass murderer, Faisal Shahzad. Nothing like a good pre-election Shahzad defense to keep the House.  Bravo Mr. Moore, Mr. Olberman, Ms. Maddow, and all the other ladies and gents of D-Kos rec'ing this crap.  Bravo, indeed!

              •  Moore's Cohen column analogy was good (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DelicateMonster

                How is this:

                "Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment ... Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me."

                not applicable to Williams' remarks about Muslims?  This excerpt has nothing to do with actions resulting from the view, just with the view itself - the snap judgement.

              •  I think it's where you put the emphasis (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                basquebob, lotlizard, divineorder

                I frankly am with you in terms of distaste for Williams and NPR in general. But the bulk of Moore's criticism isn't at what Williams said--you'll recall he actually doesn't think it's that big a deal--neither do I--it's WHAT WILLIAMS AND ALL THE CHATTERING CLASS LEAVE OUT--NAMELY THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE 'TERRORISTS' ARE DRIVEN BY OUR OCCUPATION.

                Let's repeat that for emphasis because it seems to get lost in the shuffle here:

                The action of folks like Shahzad our driven by our occupation of first Iraq and now Afghanistan

                Jerks like Williams talk about their simpering fear of Arabs without mentioning once WHY maybe there is an honest political context for that fear. It's called invading a person's country and murdering
                them.

                So Moore's criticism isn't some wimpy sup to the PC crowd, it's a fucking flagellation at the  massive hypocrisy in our media and elites that will wimper about the symptoms of their fucking 8 years of fucking war against two Islamic countries without once addressing the fact that our non trivial invasions and occupations have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who are of the Islamic faith, and yeah, that's WHY they are pissed off.

                Our fucked up wars in short are breeding the very terrorism we seek to 'defeat' with--wait for it-- our fucked up war. Now you can make an argument about it's efficacy or how we got there or whatever, but Williams and the chattering class want to make this about some nebulous 'fear' which in point of fact should not nebulous at all. There are folks that are pissed off enough to kill us because we have spent a good part of the last decade invading their lands, occupying their lands and murdering their families.

                But no one really want to talk about that, do they?

                And it's a good thing that Guinho took off his ill considered TR. It was a fucked up thing to do and his defense of it was illegally shallow.

                90% tax on all income over a million or more: a simple solution to funding Healthcare Reform, extending Social Security benefits and other budgetary concerns.

                by DelicateMonster on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 07:59:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  "Standards"? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              basquebob

              Yeah...like Fox has "standards" for news reporting.

              "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

              by blue in NC on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 05:53:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  not the point (0+ / 0-)

                The question is whether one can justifiably paint williams as a bigot for saying that he has gut reactions to muslim garb, but that those reactions are "crazy" and no more justified than being afraid of someone wearing a cross because of Timothy McVeigh or Fred Phelps.

                I do not think that's justifiable.  Fox's standards or otherwise have no bearing whatsoever on that.  That you raise them simply makes me think that you aren't mad at Williamms for anything he said, only for the fact that he appeared on Fox which violates your "if you aren't with us, you're against us" mentality.

                This is what I infer.

                I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

                by Guinho on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 03:24:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  And you spend time (0+ / 0-)

              in front of the mirror with a straight face?

              How?

              90% tax on all income over a million or more: a simple solution to funding Healthcare Reform, extending Social Security benefits and other budgetary concerns.

              by DelicateMonster on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 07:41:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Well, thanks for answering and... (6+ / 0-)

          ... I do agree with you that the point about mistaking "flood" for "blood" doesn't hold water with me. That being said, I don't think it's HR worthy. Plus, if you take out that one part, there is still a lot of good information in the diary. I especially liked the update.

          Take care,

          hink

          Hyperbole will be the death of us all!

          by MrHinkyDink on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 09:21:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you must exhaust yourself. nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

          by zedaker on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:35:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What Muslim lands did we occupy before 9-11 (0+ / 0-)

          It's not a question to you. It's a question to Mr Moore and this community.
          I do not agree with Juan Williams. His comment was indeed offensive. I have never liked Juan Williams. We have real threat from e-Islam meaning extrem Islam. Shazad is one of those. He is no freedom fighter.

          •  Wow, good point! (0+ / 0-)

            What Muslim lands did we occupy before 9-11

            We've never done that, have we?  Or our proxies?

            I think maybe, just maybe, you've stumped the almost-unstumpable Mr. Moore . . .

          •  US policies killed many Muslims (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, ohmyheck, Dr Marcos

            prior to 911.  The sanctions on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands, for example.

            Of course there is the ongoing blind American support of Israel for its occupation and theft of Palestinian land.

            •  I agree but we were not occupiers (0+ / 0-)

              We did lot of good also. We gave aid to Palestine and Egypt. I do not condone or agree with the knee-jerk reaction this nation took after 9-11. But justifying 9-11 by any logic is pointless. The Muslims were happy to be our proxies against Russians in Afghanistan. We did not force them to fight. We just gave them weapons and unfortunately still do to fight us. We pay for safety of NATO supply convoys. So have balanced view it's not all black and white. There is whole lot of gray. We as humanity need to find a way to resolve our differences than use warfare. Until then we cannot quiet call us intelligent species. Peace.  

              •  True, it's not all black and white (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                realthinker

                I wish I could believe that most in this country saw it that way. But I'm not sure they do. Certainly our government acts as though it's black and white. As far as I can see, Obama hasn't expressed the least bit of moral regret about the war in Iraq - just that it was the wrong tactic.

                Good post, though.

          •  Answer (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alumbrados, Shotput8, divineorder

            What Muslim lands did we occupy before 9-11

            I didn't see Shahzid imply that we occupied any lands before 9-11. He said:

            I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims

            He does not make any reference to occupations before 9-11 (unless you include comparing himself to Saladin who led the Muslim army during the Crusades).

            Also from what I know of the case it is fairly clear that he was only radicalized after 9-11. During the late 90's he attended college in Washington DC and was described by one classmate as "nonpolitical". He was went to work in the financial industry in the early 2000's.

            Seems he began to get radicalised in 2006 when friends said his emails began taking on political overtones.

            Non Violence is fine... so long as it works. - Malcolm X

            by Dr Marcos on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 08:23:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If if you've read up on any of this... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder, realthinker

            you would know it isn't just about occupation, it's also about having our military in the middle east and our support of oppressive regimes in the region, e.g. - Saudi Arabia.

            After the first gulf war our military has been operating out of many middle eastern countries. Now, I wouldn't call that an occupation, but some in the middle east obviously see it differently.

            At the end of the day, I think it's personally about getting U.S. influence out of the region, at least from their perspective. I know I personally don't like foreign governments meddling in our affairs, yet they are, so the fact that others see it the same way shouldn't be surprising. It's the tactics about how we go about dealing with these situations, and our respective governments, that make the difference.

            The sleep of reason produces monsters.

            by Alumbrados on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 09:16:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Baloney (4+ / 0-)

          "blood" is a far more evocative word than "flood". It's a distortion. Moore's criticism is right on.

          Furthermore, Moore is absolutely right to point out that Muslim terrorism, including 911, has been partly in response to US actions.  The role of American policy in this has been highly downplayed by the media. That is not to justify it, but the US is doomed if it can't recognize that fact.

        •  What is accurate is that US occupation of Muslim (0+ / 0-)

          countries and lack of respect for the Geneva conventions has fueled retaliation.  Injustice on our part is metastasizing enemies of the U.S.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site