I’m sure Williams realized the axe could fall at any moment. Yet he acted and decisively too.
If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
My opinion is that NPR was making a political statement as well. They lean toward Liberal? Well, golly gee, Homer, tell us something we don’t know.
Excellent point…for sure the government isn’t involved with eclipses.
Did Geico give some examples of Lance Baxter’s behavior that violated their standards? Or was it just thoughtcrime?
Geez, I would get a little nervous getting on a plane with obvious Muslims. I know I really don’t need to be, just like I know I have no reason to be nervous getting on a roller coaster. I love roller coasters.
If I’m honest with myself and others, I have no future with NPR I guess.
In short, I finding the NPR action as frightening and so stupid that it is only going to increase bigotry through misplaced blame on muslims by weak minded conservatives for a stupid reaction by a publically supported (read liberal) media outlet.
He wasn’t fired for acknowledging an irrational prejudice, as you try to paint it.
And NPR gets like 7% of funding from the feds. By your logic, they are in the pocket of big corporations, who give them far more money.
The amount of sheer, desperate terror in this country just baffles me.
No, he shouldn’t have been fired. It was a gross overreaction to some candid remarks which, in context, were reasonable and non-bigoted, IMHO.
I just don’t see the narrative that he was fired for acknowledging a common irrational prejudice.
Reading his entire remarks, in context, he makes a number of controversial statements. First there is the whole “first and foremost” as Muslims and muslim garb nonsense, some of which was not necessary to make the point that he feels scared when he sees Muslims on an airplane. But there is also the statement that political correctness is preventing us from recognizing the truth about terrorism, and the acknowledgment of the “fact” that Muslims are at war with America.
Those are not things an objective journalist says, and what NPR has said is that they repeatedly warned him that he would be held to their standards for journalists, even though he has earlier crossed the line into commentary during his Fox News appearances.
I don’t know, Marley. In post 92 you say there’s absolutely NO WAY that it could be the case. In post 122 you say that you can’t prove it categorically and I guess back off your position a bit.
I have an open mind and am willing to consider a possiblity until it’s proven impossible. Evidently, you don’t?
Yeah, that’s the point. It doesn’t make sense, logically - of course they’d disguise themselves (if they even tried that attack again at all - I doubt it, they probably won’t fight the last war, knowing that the US is).
But it was an honest response. The muslim kit reminded him of what (a subset of) muslims do. The fact that he was fired for it is so over the top. Plus, I bet it will (further) fire up a conservative base in the coming election - protecting a poor liberal from the Political Correctness douchebags.
I live in Dearborn ,Michigan and see burkhas and other muslim garb all the time. I don’t even think about it anymore. Get over it. You are judging people on how they look and dress.
One thing you can be sure of is that if someone says “I am not a bigot, but …” then they are about to say something bigoted.
Err, he was referring to Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who attempted to blow up Times Square with a car bomb:
And as noted in the Atlantic:
So they would never take money from someone who overtly supports a particular party or moderate an election debate using someone who wrote a book about one of the candidates. Yes, they are the model of non-partisanship.
And has been pointed out to you before you almost had an airline full of people drop in on you last Christmas. William’s remarks are based on the historical relevance of 4 downed aircraft on 9/11 and subsequent aircraft attacks by Muslims. This is in addition to the previous WTC bombing, the Times Square bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Maryland Sniper attacks, various arrests for plots to blow up shopping malls or other buildings, embassy bombings, worldwide train bombings, subway bombings and numerous public announcements of intent to commit similar attacks in the future.
It’s really swell that the majority of Muslims haven’t raped you in your sleep recently but that doesn’t change the reality that currently there is a real danger of another attack by Muslim extremists. There is a look associated to those who wish us harm and Williams verbalized a rational fear associated with that look.
And the number of those people who did so while “dressed in traditional Muslim garb” is…?
zero? Those threatening more violence, 100%. The connection is the religion and more to the point, the most extreme of the religion. An American Muslim wearing a white cap and a long beard will visually be compared to those threatening to commit additional attacks. That the attacks may be done through stealth doesn’t negate the association with those who do the threatening.
so the rationality in showing nervousness of terrorism when seeing someone dressed in “Muslim” garb is…?
The association with those who intend to repeat the action.
So, one more vote for irrationality.