dagblog - Comments for "Juan Williams"

I see this as like the

Donal — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 06:36:14 +0000

I see this as like the Sanchez situation. Both men were on the way out. Sanchez' boss and sponsor had just been canned, so he knew he was in trouble. Williams has been a sore subject at NPR for a while. All management needed was an excuse to toss them out. Sanchez gift-wrapped his exit; Williams' comments were a bit more debatable, but close enough.

Juan is a prick. He has

Richard Day — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 06:22:10 +0000

In reply to Juan Williams

Juan is a prick. He has always been a prick.

He saw a chance to get regular pay from NAZI's and took it.

He just realized that if he looked reasonable about all of it, he could receive monies and seem like a moderate.

All he was doing was parroting Jessie Jackson when Jackson referred to being scared on the street until he saw that his potential danger was white.

Juan thought he could get away with the same type of statement Jackson made only in the mode of Arab/Muslim dress.

Juan got a raise of two mill.

Congratulations Juan, you hypocritical prick.

I'm the only one who seemed

we are stardust — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:36:25 +0000

In reply to Yeah,having been delinquent

I'm the only one who seemed to mind; it's not my site, but again, your ironic 'last blog' tweaked me. Sorry to have struck such a nerve; you have a right to care, I have a right to think that 'Liberal' News-o-tainment can do as much harm as good. Focusing on the crazy without regard to accuracy too much is not healthy, IMO. That's all.

Yeah,having been delinquent

Flavius — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:59:06 +0000

In reply to I probably shouldn't have

Yeah,having been delinquent about making the effort I should have to learn the rules I figured I should stop blogging and did.Therefore my tongue -in- cheek "final" blog.

Yesterday.

I would have then preferred not to resume today.

In my case however, I do care about this issue in which important rights are in opposition . But was reluctant to blog from a combination of indolence,timidity and what was clearly a correct impression that I'd already worn out my welcome. Not for the first time.

However no one else took it on so I did.

As to Keith and Rachel , I pay attention. But I'm a liberal so that's as you would expect.

I probably shouldn't have

we are stardust — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:59:55 +0000

In reply to Sorry about the excessive

I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but your last diary said it was the last; the irony of another following it was heavy, and hard to resist after recent contretemps over post timing and rules.

An employee does not have freedom of speech on the job. A spokesperson for an organization can be deemed useful or not. Juanie will sue and probably win; NPR had been looking to dump him for a while, I think.

Helen thomas got dumped for saying things not on the air; that was utter crap.

You missed my point about mocking, and no one listens to Keith or Rachel except the liberals who like that stuff, or ones like me who have no cable: I listen online sometimes while I eat my toast in the morning.

p.s. I really just don't care much about the issue either way, I guess.

Sorry about the excessive

Flavius — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:30:11 +0000

In reply to But the degree to which

Sorry about the excessive number of blogs yesterday. Since yesterday was my first day it's not as if I were making a habit of clogging the system. Today this has been the only one. so I'm averaging out.

It seemed to me that it raised an extremely substantive issue: freedom of speech vs journalistic bias. But I knew whatever I wrote would offend a significant number of readers and I'm no more anxious to be unpopular than anyone else.

If you or anyone else had posted I would have gladly stayed out of it.

As to O'Donnell I don't agree mocking her is crowding out other substantive issues. Except possibly for Rachel herself. And there are an infinite number of other voices to replace her.

I find the criticism itself sophomoric but I think it might be useful by sending a subliminal message to Independents that if the Tea Party endorses so inferior a candidate that raises the question of whether its other choices are similarly flawed.

But the degree to which

we are stardust — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:34:37 +0000

In reply to That was my thought,

But the degree to which Maddow, et.al., pay so much mocking attention to the O'Donnells of the world also prevent time being spent on truly substantive issues and news, and also give people on the Right so much ammunition to call us 'elitist', which is increasingly true.

Fancy: O'Donnell is no threat to her opponent's win; it's just that it's so bloody fun to mock her, and to show what a total ignoramus she is. And often, the people and sites that focus on those 'news' items, are in fact just acting as schills for the Democratic Party or the President, and in their haste, bring us less than factual evidence of their alleged crimes or connections.

Sorry to rant; I'm tired of it all. Until Dems call out their own, or only focus on partisan divides, we'll all keep suffering for it.

And this poster has three blogs up in one day; not kosher according to management's guidelines.

That was my thought,

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:57:23 +0000

In reply to And another distraction

That was my thought, too...yesterday and the day before it was Virginia Thomas, now it's Juan Williams. It's a 24/7 job trying to keep Christine O'Donnell out of the news cycle.

And another distraction

we are stardust — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:54:10 +0000

In reply to Juan Williams

And another distraction preventing us from speaking to issues of great concern to Americans. 24-hour news cycle strikes again.

Interesting. Like reading a

Flavius — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:50:00 +0000

In reply to I'm trying to be charitable

Interesting. Like reading a rare foreign correspondent's report from Bhutan since I don't watch any Fox except occasionally as a captive audience .

I thought he'd been over-promoted by NPR . A perfectly adequate representative of rising blacks of the post civil rights generation- but without the maturity and life experience appropriate to be classified with Daniel Schorr as a Senior Correspondent.

Understandably he doesn't appear at his best in his Fox "essay" in today's Times. But that's a tough test.