NPR you suck

[Riot]

For all those here whose goal is to justify keeping the ridiculous fires of "Muslims attacked us on 9-11!" burning:

Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic:

Juan Williams: Busted
23 Oct 2010 11:26 am

Juan Williams: On general suspicion and nervousness around people wearing "Muslim garb":

I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. 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. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts.

On general suspicion and nervousness around people with dark skin, in a TNR colloquium about whether it was justified, given the objective racial statistics of who is likeliest to commit crime:

Neither black nor white store owners are in business to display the virtues of admitting people of all colors, creeds, and fashions to their stores. They are in business to make money. I would want to take precautions to prevent robbery; I would look closely at people entering the store. The race of a potential customer would be one factor among many to be considered as I girded myself against thieves.

But in Washington and almost all other major cities, blacks do patronize jewelry stores. A jeweler in Beverly Hills who closed his door to heavily bejeweled Mr. T would be foolishly closing his cash register. Unless I am a racist, race and age cannot be the sole deciding factors in calculating whom I will and will not let into my store. And I certainly would not close my door to, say, all young black men - not even to those who are casually dressed and behaving nervously. I would act cautiously in dealing with them, as I would with an antic, strangely dressed white man.

As a cabdriver I would apply the same considerations. Discrimination can be used judiciously. I would certainly exclude one class of people: those who struck me as dangerous. Nervous-looking people with bulges under their jackets would not be picked up; nor would those who looked obviously drunk or stoned. It all comes down to a subjective judgment of what dangerous people look like. This does not necessarily entail a racial judgment. Cabdrivers who don't pick up young black men as a rule are making a poorly informed decision. Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment.

The elevator question is disingenuous. I suspect you are suggesting that I am a white woman getting into an apartment building elevator with a strange black man. Of course, black women have just as much to fear as white women. Nevertheless, black women living in black neighborhoods ride elevators with black men frequently, and do so without being raped. In this situation and all others, common sense is my constant guard. Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.

Notice that Williams uses facts and evidence to make these judgments. Yet the facts and evidence in the case he was discussing on Fox News prove that there is no statistical reason whatever to get nervous around those in Muslim garb on airplanes - since no terror attacks in America have been conducted by people in that attire. Yet that factor - and that alone - is what he invokes to justify his fear. This is anti-religious bigotry in its purest, clearest form.

In stark contrast, in the case of generalizing about nervousness and suspicion of thievery toward African-American men, Williams is far more circumspect. He takes statistical evidence into account; he looks for aspects in a human being that, independent of their race, might make one suspicious. He rules out judgment based on their clothing or their "acting nervously". But when it comes to Muslims in traditional garb, he feels nervous because of that fact alone, and associates them immediately with a terror suspect involving Islam in general - not radical Jihadism - as at war with the West.

So generalized nervousness around people wearing Muslim garb (who statistically have committed zero acts of terrorism in the US) is not bigotry; but generalized nervousness and suspicion around young black men (who statistically were much more likely to commit the crimes in question in the thought experiment in the colloquium) is racism.

Why, in other words, did Williams not say about those in Muslim garb:

Common sense becomes bigotry when religious attire becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.

Why does he have this extreme double standard? And how dare he use his own record in defending civil rights for African-Americans to justify his bigoted prejudice against devout Muslims?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. He is on Fox News, pandering to the anti-Muslim bigot, Bill O'Reilly. And Roger Ailes rewards him for that role, as a "liberal" justifying anti-Muslim bigotry, because pandering to bigotry makes for good ratings and good politics.

[Riot]

And here's an interesting viewpoint from Glenn Greenwald at Salon. In part:

And then there's the more amorphous but arguably more significant self-justifying benefit that comes from condemning "Muslims" for their violent, extremist ways. I'm always amazed when I receive e-mails from people telling me that I fail to understand how Islam is a uniquely violent, supremely expansionist culture that is intrinsically menacing. The United States is a country with a massive military and nuclear stockpile, that invaded and has occupied two Muslim countries for almost a full decade, that regularly bombs and drones several others, that currently is threatening to attack one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, that imposed a sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim children, that slaughters innocent people on a virtually daily basis, that has interfered in and controlled countries around the world since at least the middle of the last century, that has spent decades arming and protecting every Israeli war with its Muslim neighbors and enabling a four-decade-long brutal occupation, and that erected a worldwide regime of torture, abduction and lawless detention, much of which still endures. Those are just facts.

But if we all agree to sit around and point over there -- hey, can you believe those primitive Muslims and how violent and extremist they are -- the reality of what we do in the world will fade blissfully away. Even better, it will be transformed from violent aggression into justified self-defense, and then we'll not only free ourselves of guilt, but feel proud and noble because of it. As is true with all cultures, there are obviously demented, psychopathic, violent extremists among Muslims. And there's no shortage of such extremists in our own culture either. One would think we'd be more interested in the extremists among us, but by obsessively focusing on Them, we are able to blind ourselves to the pathologies that drive our own actions. And that self-cleansing, self-justifying benefit -- which requires the preservation of the Muslim-as-Threat mythology -- is probably more valuable than all the specific, pragmatic benefits described above. All this over a "menace" (Terrorism) that killed a grand total of 25 noncombatant Americans last year (McClatchy: "undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism").

[Antitrust32]

Well I believe I have a better chance of getting my imaginary pud caught in my zipper than Riot answering a question with her own opinion.

& those two articles posted were absolute shi.t.

[SOREHOOF]

The only thing I got from those articles is that people in "Muslim garb" are the least likely to do you any harm. The terrorists know this. They wouldn't be on a "mission" dressed to attract attention. We should only be suspicious of people who are dressed "normally". Completely without regard to their ethnicity.

[Rileyoriley]

I can honestly say I'd rather be on a plane with a thug in baggy pants, an 80 year old woman, people in muslim garb and Morty than with Riot.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I can honestly say I'd rather be on a plane to Vegas with a thug in baggy pants, an 80 year old woman, people in muslim garb and Morty in a Superman's suit than with Riot.

FTFY

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Riot

And here's an interesting viewpoint from Glenn Greenwald at Salon. In part:

Riot,Sweetie....would you like to meet me in Louisville in a few weeks?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

[Rileyoriley]

Both my conscious and unconscious mind would rather fly with thugs and muslims than Riot.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

Let's do an experiment and see if any one group committs more crime than another. Let's check out the most wanted criminals in Los Angeles:

http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted

Do a good inspection of the list. It's beyond what even the most racially biased person would ever imagine in their wildest dreams.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

Danny...enough with the quoting of intellectual hypocracy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

Good article.

[Danzig]

i thought it was. seemed a better attempt at the point rupert was trying to make with you, riot. and i'd wager everyone knew the answer, although you were far too reluctant to say what we all would know is the truth. hell, everyone knows you don't have to fear an 80 year old woman, unless she's driving!
it also made the point i was trying to make a few days back. voicing your thoughts or visceral reactions is being honest, not dishonest. now, acting out on irrational feelings is a whole different story. but like i said when this first came out, how can we have dialogue if people are afraid to speak? this thread illustrated that point, albeit a bit awkwardly.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i thought it was. seemed a better attempt at the point rupert was trying to make with you, riot. and i'd wager everyone knew the answer, although you were far too reluctant to say what we all would know is the truth. hell, everyone knows you don't have to fear an 80 year old woman, unless she's driving!
it also made the point i was trying to make a few days back. voicing your thoughts or visceral reactions is being honest, not dishonest. now, acting out on irrational feelings is a whole different story. but like i said when this first came out, how can we have dialogue if people are afraid to speak? this thread illustrated that point, albeit a bit awkwardly.

Ruperts point was self-evident, but for a slightly different reason, matching what he posted about crime in LA. I agree with the article - blind obedience, without question as to why, to irrational fears isn't something to embrace.