Month: October 2010

I stopped by the Big Think office last week to discuss religion, coming out, conservatism and blogging, among other things. Here I am on blogging vs writing:

And here on my own coming out process:

A big reaction in the inbox. A reader writes:

You are dead wrong on this one, Andrew. You wrote, “But Juan could control what he said on national television.” Huh? Andrew Sullivan, telling people to control what they say?

What Juan Williams said is not bigotry. He did not advocate legislating special laws designed to keep people from dressing in traditional Islamic garb. He did not say these people were terrorists. He did not say they should not be allowed here. He simply said he gets nervous.

No he didn't simply say that. He equated it with America's alleged "Muslim" – not "radical Muslim", or "extremist Muslim" threat – but "Muslim dilemma". He cited a Jihadist terrorist coopting all of Islam for his extremist violence and endorsed this terrorist's analysis. He said it was legitimate to feel fear when someone in Muslim garb is on a plane – despite the fact that no Jihadists have ever worn such clothing to murder people on planes in America. One of the most recent wore a US military uniform. If Williams had said he feared dark-skinned men in US uniform on planes after Fort Hood, would we not think that was bigotry? Another writes:

Calling someone a bigot in public discourse is a serious matter.

(And yes, calling a statement bigoted is calling the author of that statement bigoted.) Describing one’s irrational feelings about people belonging to a group is not bigotry, especially if one follows it up with a statement such as Williams did later in the segment: “We don’t want in America people to have their rights violated, to be attacked on the street, because they hear rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy.” We expect better from you than knee-jerk PC reaction.

I think it's more complex than that, as I explain here. Someone who is not a bigot as such can still say bigoted things from time to time. When he does so on national television, he should expect a reaction. Another:

I see no difference between what Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly say out loud vs. what Trey Parker and Matt Stone attempted to do on South Park by drawing Mohammed.  Yet you defend South Park and criticize the media companies who censored it.  Think about your position for a moment: You'd rather a guy lose his job over a thought crime – even if it's a legitimate fear he holds – but you defend someone else who goes out of their way to specifically poke fun at, and offend the sensitivities of, an entire religion.

Are you kidding? Making fun of all religions, including Islam, is a treasured facet of free speech and an example of blasphemy and comedy. It doesn't come close to bigotry of any kind. And my reader says that Williams' fears are legitimate. That's the entire point. They aren't. They are irrational fears of the other, based on simple religious indicators (like a yamulke or a cross or a veil) and generalizing the actions of a tiny few to a vast majority. If that isn't bigotry, what is? Another:

It is unfortunate that there might be an association between traditional Muslim garb, airplanes, and terrorism.  However, I don’t think someone who reflexively feels nervous in the situation Williams described is automatically a bigot. He did not say others should be nervous too or that he acts on his nervous feeling and exits the plane. He simply acknowledged the association and honestly shared it.

In my opinion Bill O'Reilly’s statements reflect the way a segment of America is responding to irrational reflexes and in some cases bigotry. He is acknowledging his/others fear and then advocating certain policies or actions based on that fear. Namely he is supporting resistance to the Cordoba House based on the irrational association between American Muslims and terrorists. I think THAT is a dangerous train of thought.

Except Williams also opposes Park51, calling it a "thumb in the eye to so many people who lost their lives and went through the trauma there." And he legitimized it. I think that what Fox News is legitimizing is anti-Muslim bigotry, making money off it, and polarizing the country for the sake of profits and ratings. I also think it's a subtle way to demonize a president whom a significant number of their viewers believe is a Muslim, is designed to increased Republican turn-out, and runs the risk of inciting violence against the president as a closet terrorist or "pal" to use Palin's word, of terrorists. The fact that this will hinder us from winning the war on terror, the key to which is isolating the extremists from the vast majority of Muslims, as George W. Bush understood, seems not to matter to them. As another reader writes:

They don't want to win this war. They don't care if they ever win this war. Why should they? This war is gold.

What Roger Ailes is doing is disgusting. And dangerous.

A reader writes:

At least there's one good thing to come out of this whole Juan Williams v. NPR mess: we've finally found a program that Republicans are willing to say they would cut.

You want to know what the future is, if the Palinites gain more power? Watch this video made by the Anchorage Daily News. These sinister goons are not only handcuffing and intimidating reporters and bloggers, but two of them have been revealed as active duty military personnel:

Can you imagine what the right-wing blogosphere would be saying if a Democratic Senatorial candidate not only barred bloggers and reporters from asking questions at a campaign event, but hired military personnel to handcuff and sequester them – and other journalists? If this doesn't wake people up, what will? And for the record, here are Palin's tweets about Miller, before he refused to declare her obviously qualified for president:

Please check out this great all-Alaskana video by my friend Joe Miller who is the commonsense conservative running…

Joe Miller is Ready to Win for Alaska! Vote for our pro-Constitution, pro-life, pro-private sector candidate Joe Miller for U.S. Senate!

Wow! What dfference betwn candidates'worldview! I'll post KAKM Senate debate,you'll see who'll serve AK for right reasons&protect Constitutn

Sarah and Todd signed this Facebook plea for funds:

Joe’s campaign needs to raise about $30,000 for a crucial final media buy. We can do it if we all pull together. Please go to Joe’s website at http://joemiller.us/ and donate to his campaign. Let’s raise $1,000 for each of the 30 years this senate seat has been locked in by the Murkowski family. The only way for our state to reach its potential, and to save our country, is to elect reformers who will fight for Alaska and all America and will stand up against the liberal Washington agenda. –Sarah and Todd Palin

After he won, she tweeted:

Do you believe in miracles?! Congratulations, @JoeWMiller!

Joe Miller could well be in the Senate next January. Do what you can to stop him.

Reihan continues to insist that we focus on cutting inefficiencies in government:

If the Milwaukee Public Schools spend twice as much as choice schools to deliver the same results in terms of reading and math scores, I'd say MPS can dig deeper, ideally be restructuring compensation and giving workers more autonomy. If one-fifth of public dollars spent on infrastructure are essentially wasted, as Barry LePatner argues in his brilliant new book Too Big To Fall, which I'll discuss in greater detail soon, I'd say the bureaucracies we've placed in charge of public construction projects can dig deeper, ideally by doing a better job of sharing data and using life cycle assessments. If we could reduce Medicare expenditures by 8% per year by creating a competitive pricing system, I'd say the federal government can dig deeper by making a commonsense reform that will leave the quality of Medicare unchanged if not markedly improved…

If I honestly believed that the federal government was not flagrantly wasting vast amounts of gasoline and coal, that it was offering high-quality services to poor, working, and middle-income households, and that its investments in roads and bridges were being deployed effectively, I would feel very differently than I do about the prospect of tax increases on people like my parents, who spent my childhood working four jobs between them to gain a foothold in the middle class.

Here's a question for him: How much money does he imagine we can save by making government more efficient? And what percentage of the budget deficit does he think we can close without raising taxes?

The prudent course is seeking efficiency, spending less and raising taxes. Our hole is that deep.

Peggy Noonan describes her experience of DC Republicans:

The GOP establishment stayed, and one way or another lived off government, breathed in its ways and came to know—learned all too well!—the limits of what is possible and passable. Part of the social and cultural reality behind the tea party-GOP establishment split has been the sheer fact that tea partiers live in non-D.C. America. The establishment came from America, but hasn't lived there in a long time.

I know and respect some of the establishmentarians, but after dinner, on the third glass of wine, when they get misty-eyed about Reagan and the old days, they are not, I think, weeping for him and what he did but for themselves and who they were. Back when they were new and believed in something.

Did it occur to her that if the Tea Party takes back Congress, it will be these same people – the ones who are old and believe in nothing – that run the policy shops that will write their legislation, the lobbying firms that will influence their decisions, and the sundry places they will work when they are ousted from power? When the Tea Party denounces Grover Norqist's magical thinking and The Heritage Foundation as intellectually dishonest establishment hacks, it will be time to celebrate the awakening of a real small government alternative.

Rick Hertzberg takes a Dish reader to task.

A reader writes:

The idea that NPR would fired Juan Williams is not at all a surprise to me.  The reason they did it now seems like a convenient excuse or perhaps the final straw that broke the camel's back.  For a very long time, Juan has been causing much ire around the NPR offices and with their listeners for his appearances (and statements, of course) on Fox News. See here and here. And plenty more examples can be found with a simple Google search.

Another writes:

What I found really disconcerting about what Williams said is his reference to the wearing of traditional garb as “identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims”. 

He makes it sound as though wearing those clothes is a deliberate choice by the individuals to signal that they consider their Muslim identity to be the most important aspect of their person.  No – these are their normal or regular clothes.  There may well be a religious basis for some aspects of the clothing, but I’m sure those individuals were wearing that garb because that is what they wear!  If Juan Williams were to travel to the Middle East on assignment, would some local newsperson say that Juan’s business suit and tie was his way of identifying himself first and foremost as a Christian?  Do we say that a Jew wearing a yarmulke is doing so in order to identify himself first and foremost as a Jew?  Of course not.  Williams imputes some sinister political motivation to the wearing of traditional Muslim garb; this is what really reveals his prejudice.

Fallows finds what he dubs "the ad of the cycle so far":

CAGW, a descendant of J. Peter Grace's 1980s-era anti-wasteful spending commission, is in principle bipartisan, though in this election its campaign about the menace of "stimulus spending" has an obvious partisan tilt. And if you know anything about the Chinese economy, the actual analytical content here is hilariously wrong. The ad has the Chinese official saying that America collapsed because, in the midst of a recession, it relied on (a) government stimulus spending, (b) big changes in its health care systems, and (c) public intervention in major industries — all of which of course, have been crucial parts of China's (successful) anti-recession policy.

But never mind! As a work of persuasion and motivation, this commands admiration for its technique. (I'm being serious.)