Juan Williams, longtime NPR contributor who moonlit as a token liberal for Fox News, finally got himself canned after years of flaunting NPR’s policy on their people appearing on punditry shows, for a comment (appropriately enough) he made on Bill-O-the-Clown’s show.

Principled Conservative E.D. Kain said no, Williams shouldn’t have been canned, because while he admitted to being prejudiced, he argued against implementing that prejudice as government policy:

If you look at the entire conversation between O’Reilly and Williams – and not just the out-of-context video clip that Think Progress supplied us with – it becomes pretty obvious that he’s talking about an irrational fear he experiences and the need to protect the rights of all Americans including Muslim Americans against the sort of things that this kind of fear might lead to at a political level. He also talks about the consequences of broadly painting all Muslims as enemies, and how pundits have a responsibility to resist this impulse.

Longtime BJer DougJ responded that this firing was a long time coming, and this wasn’t an isolated instance of him pissing off NPR over one comment… which ignores the problem Kain asks about, namely, whether or not what Williams said works even as a pretext to fire him.

So who’s right? Well, first of all, I will hate Kain for years for getting me to watch several minutes of the O’Reilly Factor. Juan Williams’ bigotry may be somewhat congenial, but Bill O’Reilly’s absolutely isn’t. Listening to this asshat bellow and gesticulate about how ‘whole nations’ of Muslims are at war with us, and how the anti-immigrant movement in Europe against Muslims justify his own hate.

Remarkable. Arguing that Germany, I repeat, GERMANY having a strained relationship with an ethnic or religious minority automatically is the minority’s fault? Is there any possible way Bill-O can learn less from history?

Yes, as Kain says, Juan Williams does argue against casting all Muslims as evil or violent or as terrorists, or discriminating against an entire religion for the violence of some of its members.

He also agrees with Bill-O that there was no backlash against Muslims in America after 9/11.

What the fuck?

Williams’ position in this area is incoherent, his sucking up to O’Reilly, an outright hatemonger, is intolerable, and his appearance on the show itself should never have been allowed, according to NPR’s own standards. He’s also wrong on the facts, and remarkably ignorant, if he doesn’t know about the anti-Muslim backlash America went through over 9/11. Personal anecdote: In the student housing where I lived some clown tried to put a brick through the glass door that week because they thought we were the dorm full of Muslim international students (which was actually the one across the way – silly bigots). More broadly here in America, there were beatings, there were attacks and there were mass detentions by Ashcroft, on and on. Civil liberties were trampled in the immediate hysteria.

So Kain is right that Williams tries to moderate O’Reilly’s overt bigotry in favor of his own milder prejudices. He’s wrong that this means that he should be retained by NPR. Williams’ putting his bigotry out there in public might be commendable if he in fact recognized it and dealt with it; he does not. By painting a rosy, ahistorical picture of America’s relationship with Islam post 9/11, he demonstrates his severe myopia, always a fatal flaw for ‘journalists’, and by appearing on a punditry show he violates NPR policies, which were constructed precisely to avoid this occurrence tainting their straight news focus!

DougJ is wrong if he thinks that this episode in a vacuum wouldn’t justify firing Williams (though that’s not clear from his post). Being this ignorant of events that happened so recently, and going on a talking head show to publicly proclaim your ignorance while agreeing more often than not with a fiery bigot? That’s not journalism, and a journalist should get canned for it.

Meanwhile Juan Cole over at Informed Comment employs the No True Scotsman fallacy in his piece comparing European separatist attacks to Islamic ones (which I’m not sure was the focus of the O’Reilly piece, which covered immigration in Europe but not terrorism against Europeans per se):

A Europol report on terrorist attacks in Europe in 2009 [pdf] says that out of hundreds of terrorist attacks iin Europe in 2009, most were the work of ethnic separatists. About 40 were carried out by members of the extreme left. A handful by the European far right. See also this analysis.

One by persons of Muslim heritage (I do not say ‘by a Muslim’ because terrorism is forbidden in Islamic law).

Ooh yes, the consistency and objective reliability of a definition based on ‘Islamic law’. Give me a break. If someone considers themselves a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian, then, well, they are. If there was a standard for religious hypocrisy or ignoring the plain text of your religious teachings then most religious people would have been booted into agnosticism a long time ago. Religious affiliation is an entirely subjective standard, short of those religions that double as exclusive clubs with a fixed membership and hierarchy.

What’s next, saying that all adulterers can’t be Christians? What about murderers? Pretty sure that’s in the old Ten Commandments, right?

This is an extremely common argument by religion defenders. Whenever a religious whackaloon goes nuts, there’s inevitably a backlash against blaming religion, in any way, for causing the problem, because buried somewhere in a particular holy book full of violence and slaughter, there was a passage, or two, or more even, saying that violence is bad in some way.

That isn’t an argument that religion doesn’t contribute to and justify violence, it’s just good evidence that religion generally is self-contradictory and subjective, a spectacular failure at investigating truth and finding facts.

The news that the huge government bailout of the banking sector has turned into an enormously costly mess will surprise nobody smarter than Matt Yglesias, but the details are worth pointing out:

The federal bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could more than double in size during the next three years, according to projections from the companies’ federal regulator.

Fannie and Freddie, the federally-controlled mortgage finance giants, will likely need at least another $73 billion and perhaps as much $215 billion from taxpayers in the next three years to meet their financial obligations, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said.

You mean, having the Federal Government buy up enormous piles of underwater and fraud mortgages with no oversight, intentionally paying far more than they’re actually worth, might be *costly*?

Nah!

Dday hits the nail on the head here:

Quick question: Where are the Fannie and Freddie losses coming from? Answer: bad loans they bought. Quick question: Where did the bad loans come from? Answer: the banks.

I love this line in the piece: “The projections of additional bailouts for Fannie and Freddie are in sharp contrast to recent discussions by the Obama administration about how the bank rescue known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, originally valued a $700 billion, is expected to cost taxpayers less than a tenth of that.” Yeah, there’s a reason for that “contrast.” It’s because the losses of TARP are being realized in Fannie and Freddie.

Here’s how this worked: the vast majority of the actual bank bailouts didn’t occur in TARP; it occurred through a wide array of other special programs that shoveled money onto banksters’ books or took off toxic garbage from those same books, along with accounting trickery like ending mark to market. (Dday pointed out some of this in an earlier piece, along with the fact that the AIG losses we’ve had to pay should count against the ‘profit’ from TARP, that a no-strings attached bailout now encourages more recklessness in future, etc)

Not that this entirely predictable turn of events will trouble Matt Ygelsias, who claimed that TARP would have a ‘negative cost’ to government. Right. Negative tens, perhaps hundreds of billions, Matt?

Or DougJ at Balloon Juice (motto: If We Say It’s Sunny, Please Bring Your Umbrella), who said of TARP (while adding a small proviso about AIG losses):

It didn’t cost $700 billion either, in the end, it’s pretty close to break even. Yeah, they should have settled AIG’s credit default swaps for 60 cents on the dollar (or something like that), but it wasn’t a pointless $700 billion give-away to fat cat bankstas.

Or Mistermix at BJ, who today was trumpeting the entirely fictional 8.25% rate of return on the bank bailouts while asking if, considering the enormous, Earth-shattering risks we took on to bailout Wall Street, perhaps we should have gotten slightly more cash.

Once again I can say I was right on this issue early thanks to Ian Welsh, who kindly took the time to explain, way back in August of 2009, why TARP’s ‘profits’ were and would always be nothing more than accounting sleight of hand:

TARP is making money because it was decided that it had to make money. So instead of forcing banks to take losses, or withdrawing special loan facilities, or ending concessionary rates, or making banks retire guaranteed bond issues and reissue them without the guarantee the banks were encouraged to “repay” TARP.

But if you think that means that the overall panolpy of government aid to banks was profitable, you aren’t looking at the whole picture. It’s like making 5 loans to your deadbeat cousin, and he pays back one while not being able to pay back the others and you say “I made a profit!” Not yet.

But I’m sure Bernanke and Geithner are pleased that so many folks have fallen for their shell game.

There’s a sucker born every minute, and half of them grow up to shill for Obama.

This story from the NYT would warm my black heart if I thought for a nanosecond that those half-wits in the Administration would learn anything about making deals with jackals from it:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department sued Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan on Monday, asserting that the company, the state’s dominant health insurer, had violated antitrust laws and secured a huge competitive advantage by forcing hospitals to charge higher prices to Blue Cross’s rivals.

…

In the Michigan case, the Obama administration said that Blue Cross and Blue Shield had contracts with many hospitals that stifled competition, resulting in higher health insurance premiums for consumers and employers.

…

The lawsuit took direct aim at contract clauses stipulating that no insurance companies could obtain better rates from the providers than Blue Cross. Some of these contract provisions, known as “most favored nation” clauses, require hospitals to charge other insurers a specified percentage more than they charge Blue Cross — in some cases, 30 to 40 percent more, the lawsuit said.

Christine A. Varney, the assistant attorney general in charge of the antitrust division of the Justice Department, said these requirements were “pernicious.”

Yes indeed, after betraying the American people and signing a corporatist takeover bill that taxes you to line the pockets of big insurers if you can’t afford their lousy product, the Obama administration is waking up to the fact that they are in bed with some of the most evil people on the planet, running a system of mass murder that would make most brutal third world despots green with envy.

It was so important for Obama to protect an industry that kills 45,000 Americans a year. Yes sir.

If there is, by some shockingly remote chance, a hell, Obama’s personal punishment should be to suffer an agonizing disease for all eternity while forced to fill out paperwork to desperately beg for medical treatment that his HMO refuses to provide. Perhaps due to cost? Who can say.