I love NPR.  I haven’t ever liked Juan Williams that much.  Still, this story surprises me a little.  Williams was on the O’Reilly Show identifying himself as a Fox news contributor (NPR has previously asked him to stop using the NPR name when appearing on the O’Reilly Show) when he said, 

“Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. . . .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.”

However, he ”also warned O’Reilly against blaming all Muslims for “extremists,” saying Christians shouldn’t be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh” (NPR).    According to NPR’s facebook link, “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.”  In a statement, NPR said that while Williams’ had made valuable contributions, his remarks Monday night “undermined his credibility as a news analyst.” 

There’s so much to think about here.  First, Juan Williams is no innocent, no deer caught in the headlights.  As a senior journalist, this isn’t someone who should have been surprised by the furor such remarks could raise.  He should have understood that anything he said on the Fox network could potentially affect his position at NPR.  Indeed, he had previously been demoted from staff correspondent to analyst after he took clear public positions (rather than remaining neutral) on policy issues. 

Second, what about the feelings Williams describes?  Williams refers to those “who are in Muslim garb,” people who are “identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims.”  People of faith (and others!) should beware of those who select one religious group or another to demonize.  Demonize:  to make a demon.  But is this what Williams did?  In the remarks I’ve read, Williams didn’t say that Muslims are violent, vicious or evil.  Does that make it okay?  What he did say was that he felt worried, that he got nervous, when people who chose to publicly identify themselves as Muslim got on the plane.  Fear is different from hatred and it is different from mistreatment, but does that make it unobjectionable? Not necessarily.  When is fearing others a problem?  Fearing when we have reason to fear may keep us safe and protect us.  However, irrational fear (irrational in this instance because most Muslims–including those who are easily identified as Muslim–want peace and abhor terrorism) not only makes our own lives unpleasant, it threatens the feared person or group.  Williams didn’t advise mistreating Muslims who identify themselves as Muslim, but fear often precedes mistreatment (see our internment of Japanese Americans during World War II).  We must be careful what we fear because fear is powerful. 

Third, a lot of people share the feelings Williams admitted to.  Many people are scared even if they think it’s wrong (and of course there are also plenty who are frightened and see no problem with that).  I think the interesting question is: What should we expect of people who have these feelings?  Is it okay to be honest?  Discussion can have either of two effects: it can lead irrational fear to evaporate or to intensify.  Although discussion can go both ways, I think we have to optimistically vote for sunshine (by which I mean openness, frankness in discussion) in the hopes that two minds together are less likely to go astray than one.  

This same frankness likely wouldn’t be desirable from the President of the United States.  If the president did fear Muslims, it wouldn’t be helpful for him to make this known or to discuss it.  The president can’t separate from his dual role as both spokesman and opinion leader.  In the absence of a credible threat, discussing his own fear would simply cause problems.  See for example, Vice-President Biden’s comments on plane travel during the H1N1 scare.  Helpful?  No.  

So, is the case of a journalist more like that of ordinary citizens, friends and neighbors, or more like the President of the United States?  Like the president, the journalist has a wider audience than Joe Citizen.  But like Joe Citizen, the journalist is not an opinion driver in the way that the President of the United States is.  When a journalist states a view he is not stating an official position.  With proper disclaimers, his audience need not assume that the views he expresses represent anyone other than himself.  He has only his own arguments and his own credibility to back him up.  That a media outlet gives a journalist a microphone does suggest that that outlet believes him to be serious enough to be worth listening to, and imparts some measure of its credibility to him.  NPR is apparently unwilling to impart its credibility to Williams any longer, because they apparently believe that admitting his fear (or is it having the fear?) undermines his stature as a journalist. 

Although I haven’t seen the O’Reilly factor program, it seems to me that Williams’ honesty about his fear might have actually strengthened his position in citicizing those who blame an entire population for what a few extremists do.  It might provide a space from which to convince others not to let their natural but misguided fear to get away from them and to avoid the conclusions to which a misplaced fear might lead.  Is his admission of fear so serious that this opportunity counts for nothing?   

Fourth, is the real issue neutrality?  Although I want my news outlets to seek fairness, let’s be honest, neutrality is a myth!  Is Williams’ being fired for taking yet another public position (which would be “inconsistent with [NPR] editorial standards”)?  Or is he being fired for what his position was (“[his] remarks undermine his credibility”)?  If he had taken a very liberal position on some public policy issue, could he have gotten away with it?  Perhaps I’m not being fair to my beloved NPR, but I suspect this to be true.  As  Jim Mahon opined in comments on  the NPR blog The two-way, “NPR is as liberal as Fox is conservative.”  Unfortunately, the view from nowhere is no view at all.

To understand why this is bizarre, you need to know that although we both now live in Utah County, I haven’t visited her home since she lived in Berkeley, CA  about a decade ago!  I don’t think she has ever been to my home either here or in Berkeley.  Apparently, she snapped the photo because she loves rainbows, but she had no idea that it was my home.  So,  we are Facebook and e-mail friends, yes, live at most a  few miles from each other, yes, but real-life house visiting friends? well–not yet.  (I’m  not opposed.  I’m  a regular reader of My Imaginary Blog because her children are beautiful, charming, and witty.  Not to mention Zina herself). 

So, er, if you are going to post pictures of someone else’s house, car, child etc., I recommend including with it a rainbow , a unicorn, or a puppy dog, NOT  disparaging remarks, because you know, it is a small world after all.

Last night I saw you yelling at the people who didn’t immediately stand.  You hollered in their faces without hesitation.  Your tone wasn’t remonstrative, it was hateful.  Your shrieking distracted my attention from the flag to your own distorted visage.  Even my wheelchair bound neighbor was harangued.  (I assume in your haste you didn’t notice the chair?).  I ask: will your behavior likely increase the respect and honor these spectators feel for and show to the flag?  Unlikely. 

If you are a parent, teach your children how you feel about the flag by word and deed.  If you have the opportunity to teach other people’s children, tell them about the flag code and why it is important to you.  If your group would like to issue a gentle general reminder that the flag is coming and then review expected conduct, that could be helpful.  Your example and a whispered reminder to  your neighbor might also be helpful.  I know one thing: hatred and coercion won’t be.  Honor isn’t birthed from that cradle.

Kate at Three-I don't want to forget

I wonder what else I don’t remember.  It is like when someone defriends you on Facebook and you suddenly notice that his or her status updates are not showing up on your homepage any more.  You check, and yep, you’ve been defriended.  The defriending itself is not even as disturbing as the uneasiness–who else might have defriended you that you don’t even know about?  And so I find myself wondering: what am I forgetting that I’ve forgotten?

I need to blog more.  I think I need to worry less about saying something interesting or important, and just at least say something–because I don’t want to forget. 

*The runners-up were Amelia, Beata, Bethany, Catherine (Kate), Carrie, Christa, Eden, Eliza, Nora and Sariah

The color of our dinner last night

1. Eating by color–check out this helpful grocery list 

The list is a lot more action-oriented than the tired advice to eat a variety of fruits and vegetables.

2. Librarians who recommend books

I had a great experience at the Orem Library the other day, but this Provo Library service takes the idea to a whole new level!  What a great service!  I think responding to these forms would be a fun job.     

2. Facebook, blogs & social media

On both my blog and facebook, I have received so many great furniture and furniture store recommendations.  It is so helpful!  Thanks, everybody!  So far, I have checked out Four Chairs, Bassett, DandBwoods and Cherrico furniture thanks to people’s recommendations.  I even got to see the chairs I was interested in in the wood I was interested in–invaluable.  (Thanks Brad!)

The oak table I hope to replace

Oak is the most durable choice, and undoubtedly what you should choose if you like the way it looks. Oak is also cheaper than many of the other choices. I saw a nice solid oak table that you could get with 10 chairs for $2000 at IM home. This weekend I visited my parents and admired their 25 year old oak table. They’ve refinished it a few times and now it looks almost as good as new. That table lasted through their children’s growing up years and now looks to be headed far beyond. It is proof that a good table could be a lifetime investment.

Maple is also very hard and is a great choice if you are going to have the furniture painted. It is not known for its beautiful grain and doesn’t take stain very well though. If you are looking for something to stain dark, you need to keep looking.

Alder is known for its beautiful grain. Unfortunately, Alder is the softest of the hardwoods and will mar comparatively easily. If you like the distressed look that is popular now, Alder works well for that. Alder also stains very nicely.

Cherry is my favorite. Cherry is softer than oak and maple but considerably harder than Alder. All woods darken with age–have you ever seen a light colored antique? But cherry is particularly known for this. It can darken dramatically with age, so beware if you are trying to match other pieces of furniture! A dark stain slows the color change, but UV rays will still penetrate. If you like dark wood, cherry takes a dark stain beautifully. To me, cherry says elegance.

There are other beautiful hard woods–walnut and mahogany for example–but I haven’t found a good place yet to buy a solid wood table made out of these.

One of the most important things I discovered is that it is possible to get a nice-looking solid wood dining table without veneers. However, as Robin said in response to my earlier post about dining room tables, they can do things with veneers that they can’t (or usually don’t) do with solid wood, so the veneered tables usually look fancier/more elegant/prettier.

What is your personal experience with these woods? Would you choose the wood your furniture is made out of again? Why or why not?

I  like the dark wood and it is just the right size:  74″ not extended, 108″ fully extended–which is just what we were looking for.  I didn’t seek out something quite so ornate, but if I were going to get something like that, this is the design I would pick.        

The chairs that match the table are HUGE.  They are really big, really wide, and really heavy.  They are also noticeably uncomfortable to sit in.  They wouldn’t offer any support while you were eating–they angle backwards.  And if you did lean back against the back of the chair, the pretty pattern turns out to be a pretty pain. 

I’m curious: Do you have dining chairs that look nice and are comfortable?  Or am I in search of a unicorn?    

Also, we have three youngish children.  1) Not only do the chairs not fit them (since none of us are tall they actually don’t fit any of us) but they would not even be able to scoot themselves in for the foreseeable future.  2) This table is mostly solid wood, but the top is a veneer.  Veneer = child does something awful, table is ruined.  We would prefer to get a table that was all solid wood (no veneer), but several salespeople have claimed that formal tables don’t come that way.  (You can get oak, but we don’t want oak).  My mother in law has a beautiful formal solid wood table, but it was made about 100 years ago.  Do they really not make them that way any more? 

In your opinion, how long is it worth it to look for or wait for the perfect table? I am frightened to have them come pick this back up because I am afraid that I will never see a table I like so much again. On the other hand, I am terrified not have them picking it up, because I know these chairs are a mistake!