The Diane Rehm Show

Sanpete wrote:
"Cicero, can't you make your point without making stuff up? Again, Totenberg didn't say she wished Helms would get AIDS. NPR obviously does care about what Totenberg and others say elsewhere, but Williams had by far the worst track record as reflected in complaints to NPR. Finally, unlike Williams, Totenberg apologized for what she said when she was called on it. Williams didn't, and has still refused to recognize and acknowledge why what he said was wrong, offensive and out of place for a respectable news analyst."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If the harpy Totenberg didn't say god was going to give Helms AIDS then what was she apologizing for? You can't have it both ways. What does Juan have to apologize for? He didn't wish a U.S. Senator to die a horrible death. He merely expressed an opinion about a personal fear.

Here is another Totenberg gem she said on PBS Washington Week:

“And I was at – forgive the expression – a Christmas party at the Department of Justice and people actually were really worried about this,”

Apparently, Totenberg considers the word “Christmas” a pejorative. But NPR is down with that. Had she said, "And I was at - forgive the expression - a Muslim party," would NPR be up in arms about it?

The significant issue with Mr Williams comments about Muslims is that he was _afraid_ not that he connected his fear with "Muslim clothes" and other ephemeral qualities of his fellow man. The issue is that Mr Williams was afraid, in a safe environment-an airplane, with all of the security to make it safe and the constant inspection of the plane and etc. I think that, being afraid, he looked for someone to be afraid of and attributed his fear to someone "other" rather than to himself--a person who is afraid in a situation which is not dangerous. Presumably in other circumstances he would be afraid and attribute his fear to some other cause than the presence of a Muslim. I conclude that Mr Williams is not a racist or bigot, but is a coward when his environment make him fearful. Proven cowardice is an important (a signature) reason to discount a person's opinions. Cowards grasp wildly for external causes to explain, justify and reduce their fears without consideration of whether the explanation is rational.

There are many fearful people on the news this decade who attribute their fear to the foreign/different/alien rather than to their inability to be brave in the face of minor risks. I try not to pay attention to them.

SOOOO dissapointing a show today.

A Former NPR voice coming onto NPR to call for a cut in NPR funding;
Fired for racially inappropriate comments, saying that his firing was not about race;
Employed by a company that makes its money by ratcheting up the divisiveness, decrying the divisiveness in politics;
Complaining on NPR that his voice was muzzled on NPR.

I have the opportunity to listen to and watch The O'Reilly Hour and the Rachel Maddow show. I choose not to. TDRS seems to be striving to join that company.

Taking a smaller brush, being fearful of gun ownership for hunting purposes is a fear of a small risk, verging on cowardice. Fear of people owning automatic weapons without registration or control is probably not irrational.

Besides, most of the items on your list (Christians, Bush 43, etc) are less feared than hated by a large portion of the people you label "liberals." Hatred driven by fear is another signature reason to discount an opinion. Hatred driven by reason is a lesser weakness, but still can reduce peoples appreciation of your opinion on the topic. ("What do you expect? He hates them!")

cicero wrote:"Except that Class III weapons are regulated and legal in 38 states in the U.S. A perspective owner/buyer is required to pay $200 to ATF, pass a federal background check, and get a local CLEO sign off. This fear is as irrational as all the other aforementioned liberal fears and, by your own definition, would make liberals "cowards."

Sir you are on top of things as usual, hats off on this one. Liberals do not know anything about guns or gun laws, they just hate and fear them and want them outlawed second amendment be damned, same for anything else in the constitution that gets in their way . In their minds everything with a magazine is a machine gun.

Matthew Carlson wrote:

"Does Mr. Williams really believe that he has some corner on objectivity in which he has no preconceptions, no beliefs which inform his opinions and actions?"

I think that the answer to your question is, "Yes, but he isn't aware of this belief and would deny it."

Reading these comments below makes me sad. There seems to be an overwhelming desire to shoot the messenger. Like what Juan Williams stands for or not, the fact is, he is right. There is no civil discussion in this country any more. Issues are not debated, extreme positions on either end of the spectrum hijack the conversation and any attempt at dialog ends up being a food fight where the only thing that matters are votes. I am disgusted with the left and right for not doing what is right for the country but being more interested in what wins elections - demagoguery seems to work for them and the masses like sheep follow whichever polemist rocks their boat.

rickevans033050 wrote:
"Muzzled, Oh, please.
You're able to say whatever you want on Fox.
You're not muzzled. Man up and stop whining like a crybaby in a wet diaper."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cicero wrote: The question is what does what Juan had to say on FOX News have to do with what he says on NPR?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said it had anything to do with NPR. Did you listen to the show or just read comments and comment off the top of your head. Williams is whining about not being able, in a general atmosphere of political correctness, to have an honest debate on issues.

He's making a generalized, not just specific to NPR, assertion. He proves himself wrong by his ability to do on Fox and other outlets what he claims he can't do.

Also, you might want to read entire posts before responding. I said what NPR did to him was wrong. However, since then he's been richly rewarded and pontificates freely. He also brought up the success of, non P.C. Rush Limbaugh and all his imitators which contradicts his assertion.

Truth and honesty are trumped by this thing called 'politically correctness'. The fact is people have their own opinions - all people have their own opinion.
It is far better to know what a particular person's personal opinion is than to only hear their politically correct answers.
Any person who speaks only in politically correct terms hides the truth of themself from the public - back in the day we would say such a person was a liar.

Thank you, Diane, for airing this. Juan Williams is spot on about the lack of civil discourse in this society. I'm old enough to remember when 'political correctness' started creeping in and it has permeated so much of our society - media, government, business - that it is difficult to stand up to. What this 'correctness' involves is peer pressure bullying to make perception of reality fit an agenda instead of actually facing reality. The only way to make this a better world and to find answers to the problems facing us now and in the future is to deal with what is, instead of calling it something else and throwing common sense out the window. Juan is to be commended for staying true to what he stands for, whether we agree with it or not. And, Diane, you are to be commended for addressing an issue that is affecting us more than we may know. Just look at Washington and the vicious partisan bickering over the last 15 years. They are not facing the reality of what most Americans are having to deal with and have put party correctness over the welfare of the country. And this is from an independent, formerly a republican.

I know this thread is a few days old now, but I wanted to add a few things. First, I think the biggest problem I have with Williams is that a lot of his griping about political correctness just seems to come from a pretty self-serving place. As someone noted earlier, he has no problem being on Fox and agreeing that a Jon Stewart Herman Cain impression is racist...but because he's fired for basically profiling a whole swath of the population "debate is being stifled"? Right Juan. Juan, ironically, comes off like a lot of bigoted folks (mostly white like myself) I've heard complain about "political correctness"...they genuinely want to be able to express truly offensive ideals and for there not to be any repurcussions. The only thing I did agree with him on was in regards to the guests that most "news" shows have one...his example being military generals and such...which seemed to get Diane flustered...I hate to say...but I'd wager FAR more "inside baseball" folks are guests on this show in regards to talking war, economics, or any other matters. This in my view is a growing and consistent problem at NPR.

Also, in regards to Totenberg's comments on Jesse Helms, I'd say anyone conflating that with Williams' comments really needs to think about it. While Totenberg certainly probably shouldn't have made her feelings on Helms public in the way she did, let's look at the difference in the two issues. Williams profiled a whole group of people...casting his fears and suspicions on them for no other reason than they're faith and garb. Totenberg made a comment on one individual whose track record is quite public....warts and more warts. If you want to defend Jesse Helms....who I think anyone but the most partisan hack in the world would admit was a severe racist and homophobe....have at it.

LouisvilleKC wrote:
"Also, in regards to Totenberg's comments on Jesse Helms, I'd say anyone conflating that with Williams' comments really needs to think about it. While Totenberg certainly probably shouldn't have made her feelings on Helms public in the way she did, let's look at the difference in the two issues. Williams profiled a whole group of people...casting his fears and suspicions on them for no other reason than they're faith and garb. Totenberg made a comment on one individual whose track record is quite public....warts and more warts. If you want to defend Jesse Helms....who I think anyone but the most partisan hack in the world would admit was a severe racist and homophobe....have at it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unbelievable. Williams is not in any law enforcement position to do any profiling. He was also not an NPR reporter/correspondent/journalist as IS the harpy Totenberg. In your liberal mind it is OK for an NPR news correspondent to wish a horrible death on a U.S. Senator, as long as you don't like his/her politics. Since you don't even get a whiff of hypocrisy regarding NPR's policy and Totenberg's comments, could you at least comprehend that this is not about defending Senator Helms, but about not defending Totenberg.

Since being a racist politician is catnip for Totenberg, and apparently yourself, to attack that person personally when you are supposed to be NPR's legal correspondent, when did Totenberg ever offer up her bile commentary on Senator Robert Byrd, former Grand Kleagle Of The KKK? Oh wait, he was a Democrat. Totenberg's distaste for racists becomes quite palatable when they are members of her political party.

Obviously I wasn't talking about "profiling" in a law enforcement connotation, but I think you know this. Any person is capable of "profiling" any other person in a number of social situations. Any person just can't detain or arrest another person.

Secondly, I'm not defending Totenberg. If you read what I wrote I think you'll see I said she shouldn't have made her feelings public in the way she did. Believe me, I'm a huge critic of NPR...but for way different reasons than you pal. But I will say that expressing an opinion on a person is very different than casting suspicion on a whole group of people; the majority of whom are innocent of the very suspicion you're casting on them. Helms had a track record and was very vocal in his beliefs...matching anything Totenberg said about him with his very public views on minorities and homosexuals.

Thirdly, I actually agree that Byrd has gotten a bit of a free pass on being a Klan member...but you have to remember...he came up in a similar society as Helms...both grandfathered in from pretty racist societies. The key difference in the two is Byrd has renounced his Klan membership for decades, while Helms went to his grave believing the things he did.

LouisvilleKC wrote:
"Secondly, I'm not defending Totenberg. If you read what I wrote I think you'll see I said she shouldn't have made her feelings public in the way she did. Believe me, I'm a huge critic of NPR...but for way different reasons than you pal. But I will say that expressing an opinion on a person is very different than casting suspicion on a whole group of people; the majority of whom are innocent of the very suspicion you're casting on them. Helms had a track record and was very vocal in his beliefs...matching anything Totenberg said about him with his very public views on minorities and homosexuals."
---------------------------------------------------------------

I see. You at least allow Totenberg to think insults about Helms, or in your words "profiling," but you will only go as far as saying Totenberg "shouldn't" have shared her feelings on PBS Washington Week. But Juan's sin of "casting suspicion" on Muslims on The Factor is just too reprehensible for your delicate sensibilities. One might say that your reaction to Juan's comment is as irrational as Juan fearing Muslim garbed folks on planes.