Subscribe
Best Of
Links
Categories
Archives
Search
NPR posted to Facebook today that they have fired Juan Williams because of comments he made about Muslims on the Fox network. What do you think about this?
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.
I regret to report that my campaign sign apparently fell into the hands of miscreants last night.
So, do you think this is most likely a) random teenager mischief or b) the work of someone seeking red (Republican) victory by targeting innocent lawn signs?
My yard is finally making its first foray into the world of political speech! Although our location is ideal for signs, we’ve lived here almost five years and have never displayed a sign until now. I was desperate to post a sign during the voucher debate, but alas, Pdad was not on my side.
Anyway, hooray for political speech! Hooray for the democratic process! Hooray for finally taking a stand! Yea Pfamily!
I’ve heard several supporters of Linnea Barney say that the best argument in favor of Linnea Barney is Margaret Dayton (the incumbent state senator she is trying to beat). But I think the argument for Barney can be stated more positively: Barney 1) is a passionate voice for education and 2) she believes that a moderate thoughtfulness should rule the statehouse. 3) She opposes message bills. Those are pretty much the qualities I am looking for in a state senator–how about you? Barney has both energy and experience: a potent mix! So in sum, if you can, vote for her! If not, research your local elections and think about what you can do to be involved.
To those seeking my vote:
I don’t want a tax cut. The American tax burden is at the lowest rate it’s been in years. There are services I want from my government: lower class sizes, better transit, and more people with healthcare, and I am willing to pay for them. What I don’t want to see is an increase in the debt.
I don’t want you to promise to repeal Obamacare. This may be judgmental, but when I hear someone mention “Obamacare,” I wonder if the person has thought through these issues. To me, the term “Obamacare” suggests the worst of talk radio, punditry, hype, politics for politics sake, perhaps even hatred. Also, the term “Obamacare” is misleading. Healthcare is not Obama’s baby. There were a lot of us who believed something had to be done about healthcare long before Obama came along. I am not happy with the healthcare reform that passed Congress, but I don’t believe the solution is to get government out of healthcare. The solution is for us to demand that our representatives structure our government’s involvement better.
Although I consider myself conservative, I don’t want my representative to be the conservative voice on every issue every time. Conservative is not a synonym for right or good. I want my representative to make the best possible decision every time. I want her to be a voice for what is right, for what is good, for the powerful and for the powerless. If these decisions and opportunities coincide with conservatism, then great. If something else, then great. The label isn’t important, the thinking is.
I do want a simpler tax code. For the most part, government should avoid behavioral engineering. However, although a national sales tax would be simple, it would also be regressive. The wealthiest Americans currently bear the largest part of the tax burden by far, and it should stay that way.
I do want lower debt. It is wrong to sell our children into bondage tomorrow to pay for the governmental largesse we enjoy today. Every spending and taxing decision must be measured against this yardstick. There aren’t many things we can afford to do on borrowed money.
I do want a representative who understands where money comes from. Government agencies don’t grow the economy, businesses do. Business is not the enemy. Business is not a necessary evil. Business is the source of the nation’s economic power.
I was surprised by the degree to which attendance felt like a statement of belief or even a commitment. It was a bit intimidating. As I approached the door someone (a friend, actually) challenged me and said, “Are you here because you are really a Republican or because you just wanted to come to our caucus?” Good question. I told him that if I belonged at either caucus it was more the Republican one. But on reflection, I don’t know. I would love to run for public office someday, but one of the things holding me back (besides not enjoying the appropriate type of extroversion in group settings) will be my inability to say, “As a lifelong Democrat . . .” or “As a lifelong Republican. . .” The truth is, the labels don’t fit that well. Also, I have been surprised by how much they vary from location to location. When I lived in Texas, I attended a Republican caucus and discovered that I was not a Republican. In California, I discovered that I was not a Democrat. Now in Utah . . . can’t I just be a person who thinks carefully about the issues and strives to be well-informed? Can’t I just be someone who thinks Bob Bennett has done a pretty good (not great) job and that seniority is an important issue? No–not if I want to have a voice.
One thing that bothered me in the caucus I attended tonight was that the precinct chair suggested that it would be unethical to run as a county or state delegate unless one accepted the county Republican platform in its entirety. [Is this true? I hope not. Please someone tell me chapter and verse of why it's not]. I am curious as to whether he made liars out of those candidates. Did all of them accept every point in the platform? I couldn’t have. Among other issues, I am not a fan of “consumer choice in education.” The platform seemed to be clearly pro-voucher [I didn't study the platform carefully though, it was read aloud to us] and while I believe that parents should be able to choose where they send their children, I believe the government has a proper interest in directing its limited resources towards public schools and education for citizenship. I suspect I wouldn’t be able to endorse every point in the Democratic platform either.
The turnout tonight was fabulous. Apparently people were riled up by healthcare and channeled their feelings into caucus attendance. Two years ago there were 25, tonight there were 75. One problem was that that meant there were a lot of newbies (including me–I can’t figure out where I was two years ago). For those of us rusty on Robert’s Rules of order, things started happening awfully fast. Before we knew it, the precinct chair and vice-chair had been chosen–running almost unopposed and having offered no explanation of their philosophy as delegates. That made sense because it had been explained that the chair and vice-chair were not automatically delegates. Then, after the vote it was discovered that the chairs automatically serve as delegates so suddenly rather than 5 county delegates to elect, we had only 3, and instead of 2 state delegates, we had only 1. That was a big disappointment.
I enjoyed hearing from the candidates for county delegate. I asked a lot of questions. I hope this was not too annoying to my neighbors, but as I saw that I did not have a future as a delegate, I thought a good use of my time was determining who would be a good delegate to vote for. Only 2 or 3 candidates out of 8 were informed about anything going on in the state legislature. When pressed on issues, 4 candidates mentioned that they were for stricter immigration controls. It was another moment that made me wonder whether I had caucused in the right place. Is there room in the big tent for me? I liked the part of the Republican platform that mentioned the word “humane” in connection with immigration reform.
I was disappointed in the run-up to the vote for state delegates. Someone made a motion to limit the candidate statements for state delegate to two minutes. [It was getting late!] It was promptly seconded and passed. Before I attend the next caucus, I am going to figure out how to delay a vote on a motion in order to have a discussion on it. It made no sense that we heard from our county delegate candidates at length and were able to ask them questions but only heard two minutes from our state delegate candidates. It was the hope of electing good state delegates that brought me to the caucus so this was a real disappointment. Next time, I think I would like to make a motion that state delegates be elected before county delegates. If we are going to run out of time for debate, let’s skimp on the county delegates, not the state delegates.
On Bob Bennett: of the seven candidates for state delegate, only one suggested that he would likely vote for Bennett. The others were committed to “new blood” to greater and lesser degrees. I assumed that this meant that the sole pro-Bennett candidate would survive to run in the run-off election we held, because the other six would split the anti-Bennett vote. However, he did not; he was defeated. If my precinct is representative (and I don’t know that it is) Bennett should be very, very concerned about his prospects at the May convention.
Added later: Here is a NYTimes article that describes Senator Bennett’s situation well. I fear getting a senator more conservative than Bennett. What would that mean?
There is a new senator in Massachusetts. He is Republican. It hasn’t happened since 1972. Martha Coakley was supposed to be a sure thing. She wasn’t. I have been trying to figure out what I think about this. I posted something about it on Facebook and thought it was interesting to see my friends–some extremely conservative, some much, much more liberal–line up on opposite sides of the fence. Apparently, either Coakley’s defeat and Brown’s election is an answer to prayer or it is a sign that we didn’t pray hard enough.
I find that I am not of one mind. I can’t celebrate the election of someone who supports waterboarding as an interrogation technique and opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It is hard to feel happy to see the chances for more Americans to enjoy health coverage decrease. On the other hand, I didn’t like the looks of the “reform” bills coming out of the House and Senate. While these bills accomplished things that were important to me, (for example, no denials based on pre-existing conditions and healthcare extended to more people) they seemed to do it the wrong way. Where are the promised cost savings? How will these plans be sustainable in the long term given ever rising medical costs? How will we pay for it? I am frightened and appalled by our massive debt and deficits.
Unfortunately, the healthcare reform I favor–public option and rationing at a minimum and hopes for single payer in the future–isn’t politically possible. The question becomes: if we can’t do healthcare right, is it best to do it wrong and try to fix things later or is it better to stick with the status quo? Without healthcare coverage, many Americans are suffering greatly today. With massive debt and a messed up health care system, we will all suffer in the future. Being realistic about what is possible politically, which way is best? I don’t know. That’s why I don’t know what to think about Scott Brown.
I do know that I was surprised to see the citizens of Massachusetts ( supposedly a U.S. model for universal healthcare coverage) vote as they did. I need to learn more about why.
Do you subscribe to your local newspaper? I have not in many years, but I think it may be time to start. Recently, we went to pick up a babysitter, and her father asked whether we were going to see the big game. We asked, “What game?” Pdad and I understood his reply to mean that the game was BYU v. Utah (a very big game–but we learned the next day that it was actually BYU v. USU–not nearly as big). We marveled that it could be the day of the big game without any sliver of awareness from either of us. It was disturbing. Not because we are missing out on community sports–we are accustomed to this and are comfortable with it. However, being unaware of when the big game was to be played seemed to be the classic canary in a coal mine warning experience. Can someone who is unaware of when the big game is to be played be well prepared to vote in local elections? Is someone unaware of tomorrow’s likely weather getting the information useful to her life?
Benefits of Subscribing to the Newspaper: Voting is so important (excuse the earnestness, but I wrote my dissertation on what it means to be an excellent citizen, and I can’t help it!). However, only informed voting is worth the effort. In the weeks preceding the election I can cram, trying to get as much information as possible from campaign blogs and websites, but undoubtedly the clearest and best answer to whether the incumbents need to be thrown out or thanked and returned arises from following local events more frequently than once every year or two.
And that is where I have fallen down. I can talk about Afghanistan, health care, the public option and the deficit. I know the situations of Somalia, Iran, and Pakistan, but I am much fuzzier as to the fiscal health of the city or the intentions of my city council members.
And it isn’t just that. It is a personal, daily life benefit as well. It isn’t just my citizen quotient that the newspaper would help. Newspapers are useful, aren’t they? When a friend became a fan of the local health department on Facebook, I discovered that the H1N1 vaccine was already available in my area. Would I have known that had I read the paper? And when I saw a block-long line for the vaccine, I eagerly turned to the lcoal newspaper’s website that evening, hoping that they had snapped that surprising picture. They had. The New York Times helps me understand why it is important for me to get the vaccine. The local paper lets me know when it will be possible.
Problems with receiving the newspaper:
1) Mess and disorganization. My children will unfold it. They will scatter it. I won’t stay on top of recycling. Old newspaper will build up and clutter the house.
2) I already spend too much internet time reading news. Whatever time I can carve out for newspaper reading is time I do not yet see I have. Newspaper reading time could squeeze out more important priorities.
Your thoughts? Do you get the newspaper: Yes/No? Why? What do you do about the mess and lack of time issues? Do you see other advantages and disadvantages to newspaper subscription than the ones I mentioned?
But not mine?!
On the radio I just heard that some people are concerned about President Obama’s plan to address public school children next Tuesday. I thought, well, there’s always a minority with strong and vocal views. And then, at almost the same moment, I came across a note from Amelia’s school. They do not plan to show the speech to the children. Their first reason makes sense, they don’t have the bandwidth to stream it without interruption. Their second reason left me incredulous:
This will [also] give us a chance to review the speech so we can select segments that would tie directly to our curriculum. If we do decide to show a clip in the future, parents will be notified to give their permission or to have their student participate in an alternative assignment.
“If we do decide”? You’ve got to be kidding!
[I should not be blogging because I am still so stirred up, but I just can't help it.] This is something that I don’t understand at all. Perhaps some of my more conservative readers could explain this to me, because I can’t make sense of it. My child’s school needs to preview the speech in which the President is scheduled to “challenge students to work hard, set education goals, and take responsibility for their learning” because this may or may not tie in with their curriculum? I have a suggestion: [Such-and-Such] Elementary if you find something about “challenging students to work hard, set education goals, and take responsibility for their learning” that does not tie in with your curriculum, then consider changing your curriculum!
Also, am I to understand that the principal and teachers at my daughter’s school, who are completely unelected are going to substitute their judgment for that of our elected President? Now I understand that a lot of people feel education decisions need to be made at the local level, but this is ridiculous.
Apparently, there’s still the possibility that they will show a “clip” in the future. The entire speech is only twenty minutes! I wonder, does my daughter’s school plan to pre-review the local sports teams that will visit during assemblies this year? Will they edit those presentations for what ties directly to the curriculum? Or perhaps local sports stars have more legitimacy than the President of the United States?
I am shocked and saddened. I really like my daughter’s teacher, but to me this episode is a huge black mark on my view of her new school. On Tuesday, I will be keeping her home to watch the President’s speech. And Duncan’s school? I am calling the principal to ask his plans.
Updated to Add: I spoke with Duncan’s principal. His elementary school (same school district as Amelia’s elementary school) is going to show the speech to all of their 2nd-6th graders. They are allowing parents to attend the presentation with their children if they wish or to opt out and have their children do some other supervised activity. Since there is such a controversy, I think the school is probably doing the right thing. On the other hand, I think it’s ridiculous. They won’t be sending opt out notices for the rest of the assemblies they have this year. And the other outside groups coming won’t be offering them a transcript of remarks ahead of time either.
The principal thanked me and sounded very grateful that I had called. Apparently, he had been talking to people who do not believe the speech should be shown at school before he talked to me and was glad to talk to someone who didn’t think he was doing the wrong thing. It is important not to be silent, even if you agree with the position your school is taking.
Robin asked what I think of mandatory health insurance. My reply was so lengthy that I decided to copy it here.
Mandatory health insurance is important.
1) All of us who have health insurance and all of us who seek treatment at the hospital are subsidizing those who do not have insurance–regardless of whether they’ve chosen to spend their money on other things or if they simply couldn’t afford it. We aren’t talking about pennies. This is subsidy on a grand scale. However, it isn’t a logical and carefully targeted subsidy. (If I end up in the hospital this year and you don’t, does it make sense that I should take a greater share of subsidizing the insuranceless than you should, just because you happened to avoid the hospital this year? No.)
2) We should provide a basic level of health care for everyone. It is a shame for a nation with the resources ours has not to provide a basic level of health care for its people. Without health, it is difficult to pursue happiness and it is also difficult to contribute to society.
3) If we do provide basic health care to everyone, then everyone should help bear the costs. No young, “I feel immortal,” risk-taking freeloaders allowed. Because the fact is, we don’t want to leave even young and stupid, risk-taking freeloaders to suffer, taking their potential with them, if a basic level of health care could allow us to avoid that.
4) Therefore, if we continue under the current insurance-based system (as it now seems obvious we will) everyone should be required to carry insurance. Unfortunately, we will have to figure out how to help many people pay for this, because we can’t require insurance if it means people end up going without their groceries to pay for it. But how to pay for those more explicit subsidies is another bucket of worms . . .
Other recent C&G posts about health care:
American Health Care (the comments are worth reading also)
Sketchy Thoughts on Health Care
Did you write your senators and congressperson yet?
Don’t put it off. It is fun and the health care issue is worth it. Start by finding out what your representatives believe about health care already. Just google the name of your senator or the name of your state and the word “senator.” The official websites will pop right up. Usually, there is an “issues” tab. Read all about it! What is your man or woman in Washington up to? What does he or she have to say about health care? Do you agree or disagree? Or do you need to learn more before you can decide?
My congressperson is, in my humble opinion, a conservative loon. And I say this as a person who is in many respects conservative (true, despite my surprising advocacy for single payer health care). I wrote to ask him why health care wasn’t even listed as one of the issues on his website. I had to recheck that just now to make sure it was true. Yep, no health care under the issues tab. Wow. So I sent him an e-mail asking him why it isn’t there. No response so far. But my conscience felt unburdened. I gave him some reasons why a conservative ought to support health care reform (see this article on why health insurance should not be tied to employment). I let him know that amongst his conservative constituency, there are plenty of us who care about health care and would like him to tune in.
The importance of health care is difficult to overstate. Lives, health, happiness, the budget, and our children’s future is at stake. Even though I don’t delude myself in thinking that a stray e-mail will change a senator or congressperson’s vote, I still want to be counted. I want my representatives to know the views of the people they represent, including me. I want them to know that their citizen constituency is paying attention. Lobbyists have their place. But it is wrong if the only people our representatives hear from are AMA, health insurance industry and pharmaceutical lobbyists. They need to hear from us too. If it makes sense to vote, it makes sense to spend 5 minutes e-mailing your representative. Do it now!