Muslims, Political Correctness, and the Juan Williams saga

[Hopper]

Why wouldn't an employer have a right to fire someone? Especially if he clearly did the exact opposite of what they asked?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

Thriller, that is not the issue in this thread, and I, personally, don't care to discuss it with you at length (although someone else might). To briefly respond, the relationship between two parties to a services contract is NOT an employer/employee relationship.

 

[Hopper]

Sure. They also have liquidated damages clauses. So Williams doesn't have the "right" to work at NPR, but NPR can, in effect, buy him out by paying the damages specified in the clause.

But again, we're in the realm of speculation, we don't know what his specific contract said.

Heh, lotta equivation here revolving aroung the word "right," here. There is no reason to assume a liquidated damages clause, because that is far from standard. Under normal circumstances, a contract "employee" has the "right" to continue working, even if his "employer" orders him off the premises. Such a violations of his "rights" generally results in a damage award for breach of contract, but it does NOT end his rights under the contract.

Likewise, Williams can breach and refuse to come to work. Constitutionally (involutary servitude, and alla that there), they can't FORCE him to work, as a remedy. But they still have the right to "demand" his services and will be compensated if he refuses.

 

[sirkickyass]

Heh, lotta equivation here revolving aroung the word "right," here. There is no reason to assume a liquidated damages clause, because that is far from standard. Under normal circumstances, a contract "employee" has the "right" to continue working, even if his "employer" orders him off the premises. Such a violations of his "rights" generally results in a damage award for breach of contract, but it does NOT end his rights under the contract.

Likewise, Williams can breach and refuse to come to work. Constitutionally (involutary servitude, and alla that there), they can't FORCE him to work, as a remedy. But they still have the right to "demand" his services and will be compensated if he refuses.

Now we have a dispute as to what is "standard." I will say every contract for contract attorneys that gos out of my office contains either a) a terminable for cause clause or b) a liquidated damages clause.

Obviously we're all guessing. There's no reason to even assume that Juan Williams had a standard contract given that his job is/was far from "standard" work.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Heh, lotta equivation here revolving aroung the word "right," here. There is no reason to assume a liquidated damages clause, because that is far from standard. Under normal circumstances, a contract "employee" has the "right" to continue working, even if his "employer" orders him off the premises. Such a violations of his "rights" generally results in a damage award for breach of contract, but it does NOT end his rights under the contract.

Likewise, Williams can breach and refuse to come to work. Constitutionally (involutary servitude, and alla that there), they can't FORCE him to work, as a remedy. But they still have the right to "demand" his services and will be compensated if he refuses.

So what yer sayin is that Kicky is pro-slavery? The bigot.

 

[Hopper]

Here's the problem I'm trying to address:

Williams, in the course of being a strong advocate of refusing to stereotype muslims, "admits" that he personally feels some anxiety on airplanes if he sees "muslim garb." He claims that this is "honest" and "true," and that he discloses such things in the interest of keeping an open dialogue about the problems. This admission was preceded by the comment that he agreed with O'Reilly that "political correctness" should not be used to stifle truth, honestly, and open discussion.

In response CAIR goes wild, calling for immediate action against him, which they got. There are reputable muslim groups in this county who adamantly oppose the agenda and tactics of CAIR. A representative of one of them appeared on Fox with Williams and thanked him for his comments and his honesty. In short, CAIR don't speak for all muslims either.

The charge is that CAIR is attempting to terminate discussion, not promote it, and that ideas of "political correctness" can exacerbate the problems by refusing to accept honest statements in public dialogue.

 

[Hopper]

By the way Eric, NPR published it's story at around 8:00 a.m est, it says. It keeps an "update page" which shows Williams' appearance with O'Rielly on Fox to have occured about 12 hours later, i.e, after 8 p.m. est. The ombudsman says the crap really started hittin the fan, but that it's email "crashed" around noon (presumably est, I dunno) that day. And she talks only about that day (thursday) not that "night."

She explicitly says this: "NPR’s initial story garnered more than 6,800 comments, many supporting Williams..." [The responses were to their own story, by her account.] As noted, she also says this: "The overwhelming majority are angry, furious, outraged. They want NPR to hire him back immediately. If NPR doesn't, they want all public funding of public radio to stop. They promise to never donate again. They are as mad as hell, and want everyone to know it. It was daunting to answer the phone and hear so much unrestrained anger."

This all seems contrary to you assumption that the responses to NPR were orchestrated by, or inspired by, O'Reilly's comments on his "factor" program.

 

[Hopper]

As far as my opinion about what NPR did, I say they done got played by a very small, ideologically-driven special interest group (CAIR) and ignored the mainstream wishes with respect to Williams.

Here's a website I've never visited before, but the guy sounds neutral enough. He's says Williams comments make him "uncomfortable," and that his remarks contain a strong hint of intolerance (although he doesn't think Williams should have been fired). He does conclude that NPR's decision to fire Williams was a "disaster," however.

The site says this about the author "He also hosts CNN's weekly media program "Reliable Sources," Sundays at 11 am ET. The longtime media reporter and columnist for The Washington Post, Kurtz is the author of five books," and I'm assuming he doesn't just attract ideologues as readers.

There is a poll at this site where over 8,000 readers voted on the questiion of whether Williams should have been fired. Results? 88% say no, 3% undecided, 9% say yes.

The intro reads as follows:

NPR's Juan Williams Disaster


His firing has backfired, handing Fox a victory and making Williams a symbol of liberal intolerance—on the very day NPR announced a grant from George Soros that it never should have accepted.

After watching Bill O’Reilly lead an hour of NPR-bashing on Fox News Thursday night, it’s tempting to say that the right’s reaction to the Juan Williams firing is just a tad overblown.

But it’s not. This was a blunder of enormous proportions. Even many liberals—Donna Brazile, Joan Walsh, Whoopi Goldberg—are castigating National Public Radio for throwing Williams overboard.

NPR Chief Executive Vivian Schiller—dubbed a “pinhead” by O’Reilly—made matters worse by suggesting that Williams needs psychiatric attention.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-21/nprs-juan-williams-disaster/2/

 

[Deleted member 365]

Serious question, why does Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck on every one of their shows talk about George Soros? What's so important about this guy? Is a governor from some backwards state that the GOP is trying to recruit to run as VP in 2012? Seriously, why is foxnews and am radio talking about him all the time? And it's not like I take in a lot of that kind of media. So even in my few experiences with foxnews and am radio, I'm hearing about George Soros. Just imagine if I was a real all day listener!

Can anyone explain to me why conservative radio is obsessed with this guy?

 

[Hopper]

Serious question, why does Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck on every one of their shows talk about George Soros? What's so important about this guy? Is a governor from some backwards state that the GOP is trying to recruit to run as VP in 2012? Seriously, why is foxnews and am radio talking about him all the time? And it's not like I take in a lot of that kind of media. So even in my few experiences with foxnews and am radio, I'm hearing about George Soros. Just imagine if I was a real all day listener!

Can anyone explain to me why conservative radio is obsessed with this guy?

Here's one (negative) take on Soros, eh, Thriller?:

https://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14700

 

[Deleted member 365]

Here's one (negative) take on Soros, eh, Thriller?:

https://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14700

You really expect anyone to take seriously an article that reads:

Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Gee, now I know exactly why you're so miffed at Juan being fired. Jeez.

 

[Hopper]

This from a heavily-foot-noted article in the "Mid East Quarterly":

"The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), headquartered in Washington, is perhaps the best-known and most controversial Muslim organization in North America. CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims' civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims. "We are similar to a Muslim NAACP," says its communications director, Ibrahim Hooper.[1] Its official mission—"to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding"[2]—suggests nothing problematic...

But there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization "which we know has ties to terrorism."[3] Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect."[4] Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, notes that "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."[5] The family of John P. O'Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having "been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism"[6] responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it "a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."[7]"


Is this the outfit that should set the tone and parameters for discussion about terrorism and it's connections to radical muslim extremists, ya figure? A lotta muslims don't seem to think so:


"Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR's claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."[8] Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR's goal is to spread "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."[9] Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states."[10] Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States.[11] And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA."[12]"

https://www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment