Juan Williams is a hero! Conservatives love their Fox News more than anything, and when you mess with a member of that family, you will pay , even if that member is black and liberal . To be fair, what Juan Williams admitted is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said about Muslims on Fox News, and he actually said he was against people hating Muslims based on their fear of terrorists, so commentators have a point when they say he was wrongfully terminated! And if NPR had simply fired Juan Williams because he appears on Fox News, and not for a single comment he said on there, this wouldn't have been such a big issue. But the right has found its Muslim-hate martyr or whatever, and they are tripping over each other to say the most extreme thing about his firing. So who wins?
Ha! HA HA HA! The rightnuts will use anything at all as a club to wail on their "opponents" with, won't they?
One only needs to fear the label of hypocrisy if you are someone whose convictions are NOT just weapons of convenience. So FOX and the rightnuts don't need to fear being called hypocrites.
If I thought for a minute it would wake a wingnut from his parrot-echo-deadbrain-syndrome, I might be inclined to look for how many times O'Reilly called for the firing of various media people, like, let's say, Rosie O'Donnell... But instead, I have not one single tiny rat sphincter to give.
Malkin: <i>&quot;Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.&quot;</i>
That&#039;s a specious argument. <i>Everything</i> in modern society can be characterized as the &quot;handmaiden of terror&quot;. Ubiquitous television coverage, concentrated populations, electronic money, dual use devices, encryption technology, press freedom, global economy that mixes cultures. In short, the kind of things that let a Filipino woman write a blog in America are &quot;handmaidens of terror&quot;.
The 9/11 hijackers did not depend on &quot;political correctness&quot; to carry out their plot. In fact they acted sooner than planned because the normal apolitical diligence of the FBI was drawing closer to them. The only arguable PC angle to their eventual success was the FBI&#039;s inability to search Zacarias Moussaoui&#039;s laptop without a warrant. But was that really &quot;political correctness&quot;? In the plain language of the Fourth Amendment, <blockquote>&quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</blockquote> Malkin would have us believe that following the Constitution is the &quot;handmaiden of terror&quot;.
We value our liberties and -- until recently -- have accepted certain physical and social risks to keep them. Guns are the most prominent example of a liberty that costs lives. About 30,000 deaths (half were suicides which could have occurred by other means) and 200,000 injuries in 2006. Disharmony over social policies is part of democratic debate; resentments and dislocations are part of a multicultural economy. Layoffs and welfare are the costs of entrepreneurship. We can avoid those consequences, but value the underlying freedom more.
Should we be politically incorrect? Ban Muslims. Use racial profiling. Allow detention without charges or <i>habeas corpus</i>. Search without a warrant. Tap phones. Open mail. Hold relatives accountable for their family members. Cut off the hands of thieves. These things will make us safer.
Michelle Malkin and her comrades would like America to be more like nations we (currently) scorn. In doing so, we will no longer be the &quot;land of the free and home of the brave&quot;. Because to be free we must all be brave.
&quot;I hope he doesn&rsquo;t back down&quot; Back down from what, exactly? It&#039;s not like Juan Williams leaped on O&#039;Reilly&#039;s desk calling on all of us to wrestle would-be flying Muslims to the floor at the airport.
What The Fuck is with TP&#039;ers and the First Amendment? The plain language of the Constitution says <strong>&quot;fucking Congress shall make no fucking law abridging freedom of speech&quot;</strong>. Private and non-governmental groups can abridge speech all they want. And do. Imagine standing up at a project planning meeting to expound on the failures of Repubican governance during the Bush Eon.
And -- does it go without saying? -- that if Williams had said something like &quot;gun owners should get additional screening before boarding&quot;, these First Amendment experts would be calling for his head -- literally.
It was for her saying she treated a white farmer differently. Except, she didn&#039;t say that -- the wingers edited that phrase out of her broader remarks which were something like &quot;...because of how he behaved toward my father, I wanted to treat the white farmer differently but I knew that would be wrong.&quot;
i&#039;m glad we&#039;re having this national conversation right now.
Ha! HA HA HA! The rightnuts will use anything at all as a club to wail on their &quot;opponents&quot; with, won&#039;t they?
One only needs to fear the label of hypocrisy if you are someone whose convictions are NOT just weapons of convenience. So FOX and the rightnuts don&#039;t need to fear being called hypocrites.
If I thought for a minute it would wake a wingnut from his parrot-echo-deadbrain-syndrome, I might be inclined to look for how many times O&#039;Reilly called for the firing of various media people, like, let&#039;s say, Rosie O&#039;Donnell... But instead, I have not one single tiny rat sphincter to give.
Malkin: <i>&quot;Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.&quot;</i>
That&#039;s a specious argument. <i>Everything</i> in modern society can be characterized as the &quot;handmaiden of terror&quot;. Ubiquitous television coverage, concentrated populations, electronic money, dual use devices, encryption technology, press freedom, global economy that mixes cultures. In short, the kind of things that let a Filipino woman write a blog in America are &quot;handmaidens of terror&quot;.
The 9/11 hijackers did not depend on &quot;political correctness&quot; to carry out their plot. In fact they acted sooner than planned because the normal apolitical diligence of the FBI was drawing closer to them. The only arguable PC angle to their eventual success was the FBI&#039;s inability to search Zacarias Moussaoui&#039;s laptop without a warrant. But was that really &quot;political correctness&quot;? In the plain language of the Fourth Amendment, <blockquote>&quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</blockquote> Malkin would have us believe that following the Constitution is the &quot;handmaiden of terror&quot;.
We value our liberties and -- until recently -- have accepted certain physical and social risks to keep them. Guns are the most prominent example of a liberty that costs lives. About 30,000 deaths (half were suicides which could have occurred by other means) and 200,000 injuries in 2006. Disharmony over social policies is part of democratic debate; resentments and dislocations are part of a multicultural economy. Layoffs and welfare are the costs of entrepreneurship. We can avoid those consequences, but value the underlying freedom more.
Should we be politically incorrect? Ban Muslims. Use racial profiling. Allow detention without charges or <i>habeas corpus</i>. Search without a warrant. Tap phones. Open mail. Hold relatives accountable for their family members. Cut off the hands of thieves. These things will make us safer.
Michelle Malkin and her comrades would like America to be more like nations we (currently) scorn. In doing so, we will no longer be the &quot;land of the free and home of the brave&quot;. Because to be free we must all be brave.
&quot;I hope he doesn&rsquo;t back down&quot; Back down from what, exactly? It&#039;s not like Juan Williams leaped on O&#039;Reilly&#039;s desk calling on all of us to wrestle would-be flying Muslims to the floor at the airport.
These people really don&#039;t understand what freedom of speech is, do they?
Sure they do. They just have a very different definition of it than our founding fathers intended.
NPR reports NPRs firing of NPR&#039;s Juan Williams and does it fairly fair. <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/th..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/21/13...">http://www.npr.org/blogs/th...
What The Fuck is with TP&#039;ers and the First Amendment? The plain language of the Constitution says <strong>&quot;fucking Congress shall make no fucking law abridging freedom of speech&quot;</strong>. Private and non-governmental groups can abridge speech all they want. And do. Imagine standing up at a project planning meeting to expound on the failures of Repubican governance during the Bush Eon.
And -- does it go without saying? -- that if Williams had said something like &quot;gun owners should get additional screening before boarding&quot;, these First Amendment experts would be calling for his head -- literally.
It was for her saying she treated a white farmer differently. Except, she didn&#039;t say that -- the wingers edited that phrase out of her broader remarks which were something like &quot;...because of how he behaved toward my father, I wanted to treat the white farmer differently but I knew that would be wrong.&quot;