Superintendent Todd Carlson of Shawano High School in Shawano, Wisconsin is sorry a student observed his First Amendment rights and had his article published in the school newspaper that denounces homosexuals adopting children. And so Superintendent Carlson is making amends by punishing this Christian kid for being so darn Christian. Superintendent Carlson has also decided in his infinite wisdom to censure this article by having it sent down the memory hole so that no one else will be confronted with this evil Christian’s views.

That’ll show that darn Christian kid, won’t it?

The article, “Should Homosexual Partners Be Bale to Adopt?,” was written by Brandon Wegner who was assigned the task of writing a counter-point to another student’s pro-homosexual adoption article. The piece was then published as an insert in the school newspaper, the Shawano Leader.

Shortly after the newspapers containing the insert were distributed, Superintendent Carlson issued a formal apology to the school and parents, removed the insert from surplus issues of the paper, and censured young Mr. Wegner claiming his article violated the school’s “anti-bullying” policy.

Wegner says that Carlson grabbed him up out of class and began to brow beat him in an attempt to get the kid to disavow his religious-based beliefs. According to Liberty Counsel, a First Amendment law firm, Wegner was quixotically bullied by Superintendent Carlson in an attempt to deter bullying.

Brandon was hauled before the superintendent on charges that he had violated the school’s bullying policy. Superintendent Todd Carlson told him that the column “went against the bullying policy,” and asked him if he “regretted” writing it. When Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he “had got to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic,” that “we have the power to suspend you if we want to” and that the column had “personally offended me, so I know you offended other people!”

Carlson’s action is itself “ignorant.” Ignorant of our American laws, ignorant of tenets of tolerance, ignorant of public comportment, ignorant for abuse of his position as an authority figure, and just plain ignorant in a moral fashion.

Carlson’s bullying also makes the lie to the claim that our schools are meant to teach our children. The truth seems to be that Mr. Carlson simply wants to indoctrinate, not help students come to their own conclusions when offered all sides of the issues.

In fact, the school newspaper deserves kudos for having handled the issue properly. It gave room to advocates of both sides to air their views so that readers could make up their own minds. But Carlson doesn’t want any of this horrid teaching going on. He wants to tell kids what to think based on his own warped, left-wing ideology. None of this freedom of choice nonsense in HIS school, I’ll tell you what.

Superintendent Carlson should be fired. Not because he’s an extremist liberal, but because he has violated this kid’s rights at worst and violated the principals of actual teaching at best. He is no educator. He is an indoctrinator and that is just un-American.

(H/T Moonbattery.com)

States’ rights is code for discrimination.

Isn’t it great how they can read the minds of everyone who believes in the Constitutional provision which provided States with power against the potential tyranny from the federal government?

A century and a half ago, some states asserted the right to leave the union. We fought the nation’s bloodiest conflict, then admitted the traitors back into the country on generous terms. Though our Confederate brothers and sisters died defending the enslavement of African-Americans, we did this in the name of peace and forgiveness.

Oh, you mean those Democrats who did that?

Fast forward, to the 1960’s, all Americans were free from legalized slavery — but blacks were still routinely denied the ballot. Some states blocked access to the ballot with the same ferocity, and on the same grounds, that they stood in schoolhouse doors with ax handles — states’ rights. Denial of the ballot was based on the right of states to control all election procedures.

I agree, those Democrats were bad people for doing that. Funny, though, how Democrats, who always say that they are the smartest people in the room and can see shades of gray, take a black and white position (no pun intended) on this subject, and fail to see that using the 10th Amendment incorrectly doesn’t diminish the whole thing.

But radical conservatives, frightened by the country’s demographics and the potential long-term voter realignment, and also emboldened by a federal judiciary that puts “federalism” limits on Congress’ enforcement powers, are now raising the terrible visages of voter suppression and states’ rights once again.

You know why? Because some may require *gasp* ID to prove identity when voting. So, obviously, those states that are passing/pushing laws which require people to prove who they are when performing one of their most sacred duties is intentionally raaaaacist, as evil conservatives attempt to disenfranchise minorities. Well, we are trying to disenfranchise dead people, who may be minorities. And dogs and cats, who may be owned by a minority. And Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Jesus II, Bart Simpson, Family Guy, King Kong, Doodad Pro, and Good Will, among others, will be disenfranchised.

But, any of you who believe in ALL the Amendments are raaaaacists. Period.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

“After months of litigation against the ACLU and the Santa Rosa County School District, and on the eve of Independence Day, Liberty Counsel has restored freedom to the Santa Rosa County, Florida, School District teachers, staff, students, and members of the community.

Faced with an imminent trial and damning evidence of their constitutional violations, the ACLU and the Santa Rosa School District have agreed to settle Liberty Counsel’s federal lawsuit, challenging their Consent Decree on behalf of 24 students, teachers, parents and community members.

The Consent Decree that led to criminal indictments against school employees for prayer and banned “God Bless” in Santa Rosa County schools will now be gutted and revised.

The amended Consent Decree will restore dozens of constitutional religious freedoms that were previously denied. In addition, Liberty Counsel and Christian Educators Association International will be awarded $265,000 in attorney’s fees and costs from an insurance provider, not the taxpayers, to compensate them for the litigation caused by the ACLU and the District.

Source

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Personally, I’m not inclined to accept their apology.

Whenever the MSM does something like this, they claim that it’s all about political correctness, and trying to avoid offending those of us who don’t believe in God.  I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying that explanation…

Like it or not, this nation was founded by Christians and other people who believed in God.  The people who believe in God in America still outnumber the non-believers by a huge percentage.  Ignoring that fact and insulting millions of believers, while claiming to be protecting the delicate sensibilities of a vocal but tiny group of non-believers makes absolutely no sense.  While I don’t condone favoritism toward Christianity or any other specific religion, I certainly don’t want to see America become a “godless’ nation either.  The belief that we answer to a greater power is an important part of the moral fabric of this nation, and it’s become pretty obvious to me that there are people in the American media who are obsessed with destroying that belief.  They are attempting to strip ANY and ALL references to God and religion from our society.

They clearly have an agenda, and if weakening the moral fabric of this great country is a necessary step in implementing it, it certainly must be an evil one.

However, while our media may get away with something like this during an American Idol episode, I think they bit off a little bit more than they could chew doing this during the U.S. Open.  If I had to guess, I’d say roughly 90% of the U.S. Open viewing audience is comprised of patriotic, God fearing adults who have had just about enough of this garbage.  We didn’t take this particular incident lying down, and we made our feelings known.  I find that fact encouraging,  but it certainly won’t be the last time we see this tactic.  Their relentless assaults on God, religion, and morality will continue.  We must remain vigilant, and make our voices heard whenever they occur.

If we don’t, the next thing we know, they’ll be screwing around with the National Anthem before our baseball games ….

Oh wait … Rosie O’ Donnell already did that, didn’t she?

The left is always a bundle of contradictions. On one hand leftists set themselves up as the ultimate in “tolerance” and a guarantor of “freedom” to do as one wishes. Most leftists imagine themselves interested in making sure everyone is free to do as they wish to the point where that they are almost libertine about it. Until… until it comes to the freedoms of those they oppose. Then, all of a sudden, their tendency toward fascist group-think comes out in full force.

Joe Schoffstall of the Media Research Center highlighted that liberal “for me but not for thee” tendency in a recent video in which he asked a handful of Washington D.C. liberals if they’d like to sign a petition that bans conservative’s free political speech. Naturally, they were happy to do so.

One of Joe’s signers had that liberal confusion down pat. “I think there is freedom of speech,” the young woman said, “but sometimes… there has to be some kind of control. I mean, look at the Tea Party, you have all this hate going on,” she blathered. She went on to say that freedom of speech is “not something this country needs any more.”

One would imagine that if her freedom to speak were curtailed she’d suddenly find that hoary old First Amendment something she could not live without.

Here is what it said on the faux petition Joe was asking them to sign:

“The undersigned hereby adamantly demand that the United States government shut down right wing hate sites. The hate speech propagated by sites like the Drudge Report, Hot Air, Instapundit, Big Government, and others must not be allowed to corrupt our political discourse any longer. These sites are dangerous not only to truth and freedom but also to our society as a whole. BAN THEM NOW!”

Now, let’s do clear something up about what the founders instituted with the First Amendment. The founders, you see, were chiefly concerned about political free speech. One of the things that history taught the founders was that governments tended to kill political opposition (often times literally) by using the force of law to stop people from speaking, printing tracts and books, and organizing competing political parties. This oppression was something that the founders hated.

Their concept of free speech was not a generalized, all encompassing assumption that anyone could say anything at all, however. The founders were focused on political speech but did not assume they were creating a libertine right to say any old thing that a person wants to say in public.

During the founder’s era, for instance, the states commonly used accepted powers to curb certain kinds of speech. Few people doubted the government’s power to curb some types of speech. But political speech, regardless of what it was about, was assumed protected.

That right to political free speech was affirmed when the Alien and Sedition Act, the debacle law instituted in John Adams’ presidency, was repealed by Thomas Jefferson. The generalized assumption of free speech in all subjects finally came later in our history through many court cases. Still, even those cases present some limits — we are all familiar with the principle that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

I give this brief history lesson to point out a particular irony about the we-care-more-than-you leftists that want to ban conservative’s political speech. The left is particularly un-American in this fascist desire to shut down the Rush Limbaughs and Andrew Breitbarts. After all, the founders had written the First Amendment specifically to protect the speech of the Limbaughs and Breitbarts — and for that matter, left-wingers like the Keith Olbermanns and Chris Matthews of the world, too. Our founding principle is to protect the very speech that the left wants to shut down.

That makes these putative Americans not very American, doesn’t it?

“A federal judge in New York reportedly sentenced a Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty after she made racist remarks toward minorities.

“This is an outrage, and so are you!” Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis told the woman as he held up her juror questionnaire, the New York Daily News reports.

The unidentified juror — an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry — was being screened for jury duty on Tuesday in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent “Vinny Gorgeous” Basciano.

Asked to name three people she least admired, the woman wrote on her questionnaire: “African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.”

When Garaufis asked why she answered the question that way, the woman replied, “You always hear about them in the news doing something.”

Garaufis then instructed the court that the woman would be seeing a lot of Brooklyn Federal Court in coming days. “She’s coming back [today], Thursday and Friday — and until the future, when I am ready to dismiss her,” he said.

Source

It’s the judge who should be charged. He is certainly misusing the processes of the court.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

“A San Diego-area teen suspended for bringing his Bible to school and talking about his faith has filed a lawsuit against the school district, the superintendent, an assistant principal, and a teacher.

In January 2010, 16-year-old Kenneth Dominguez was suspended for two days from Gateway East High School for violating a teacher’s order not to bring his Bible to school and not to discuss his faith with others. Dominguez’s Bible was even confiscated by that teacher, who said Dominguez’s actions violated “separation of church and state:”

“He didn’t give any sermons or yell or scream… just sharing his faith with other students. That was it,” Brad Dacus, Dominguez’s attorney, told KGTV, adding that we don’t live in communist China.

Even the ACLU is calling the case a “clear” free-speech violation.

But a spokeswoman for the Grossmont Union High School District — the district named in the suit — contends there’s much more to the story. She couldn’t elaborate, however, to KGTV because of federal privacy laws

Source

Thinking about it, I would have done much the same as the family of the boy above did. My son was not Christened around the time of his birth as neither I nor his mother have any religious beliefs. But at age 9 he announced his wish to be a Catholic. As both I and his mother had been religious in our teens and earlier we were delighted by this and put his baptism and confirmation immediately in train. And we also sent him thereafter to a Catholic school — where his best subject was religion.

So nobody would have confiscated HIS Bible. But If I had been poor and sent him to a government school and someone had confiscated his Bible, they would have had me to deal with. And I am very good at pushing back.

A boy’s religion is his own business and in the USA his practice of it is protected by the constitution. And “sharing” his religious beliefs is part of being Christian. Check Matthew 28:19-20 if you doubt it.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Pleasingly, that seems to have riled Tufts people a bit — perhaps because it was reported in the Puffington Host. They are so encased in their own little mental cocoon that they think their speech codes are fair and free!

Reality is a little pesky, however. A few years ago the university ruled that two articles in a student newspaper (about blacks and Muslims) made the newspaper “guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment”, which is an offense at Tufts.

Below is the completely dishonest way a Tufts spokesman tries to wriggle out of the situation.

Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman thoroughly disagreed with FIRE’s branding of Tufts and believed the organization has exaggerated a lack of free speech on campus.

According to Reitman, it is just as essential to acknowledge offensive material as it is to allow that material to exist. “That’s the purpose of community learning — so that we have those conversations that at times include the voice in the community that says, ‘they don’t have the right to say that,’” Reitman said.

“I think that’s an ingredient of that conversation. It always will be. I will always support a person’s right to say, ‘they don’t have the right to say that,’ because that’s their opinion.” Reitman said that FIRE itself is guilty of not truly respecting the freedom of expression.

“If FIRE is saying we are at fault because we are restricting people from having an opinion that can be voiced, aren’t they doing exactly that by saying a group of people doesn’t have the right to call something harassing behavior?” he said. “I think they’re hypocritical even in making this argument. So they’re saying that people don’t have the right to call something what they think it is. So they’re the ones in my mind who are talking about censoring.”

Brucie might make a good theologian but he is no logician. Neither FIRE nor anyone else is critical of anybody disagreeing with anything. It is using the weight of the university to condemn particular utterances that is the issue. For an individual student to call something harassment is fine. It is when the university tries to suppress the “harassment” that there is a problem.

In logic, Brucie’s defense is what is known as a “straw man” argument. He can’t answer the actual charge put to him so he makes up another argument to answer. But I am sure Tufts is proud of him. I guess they don’t teach logic there. Or is it just that Leftism routinely rots the brain?

While I am having fun with Brucie, let me note this little bit of dialogue with him: “But what does the dean of student affairs do on the Hill? “Besides warning people to be careful in Mexico?” Reitman asked jokingly, referring to this past spring break.”

If a conservative had said that he would run a fair risk of having “racism” shrieked at him. It would be claimed that he is “stereotyping” Mexicans or some such. Using his own standard of logic, I therefore find him “guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment” for Hispanics

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

“I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark.”
That follows, as you’ll see below, her comment earlier today that now-former NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist.”

By politically incorrect opinion, I mean an opinion outside their brainwashed narrative. What was so offensive it deserved canning him? Well, he gets nervous when Muslims board a plane. I mean, it’s not like all the 911 hijackers were Muslims or something. Oh wait….

The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, 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.”
Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “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,” Mr. Williams said.

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

In my opinion they were obviously looking for a reason to fire him. Why not fire him for having legitimate human emotional reactions? They also didn’t bother listening to the entire segment in question to include context where he made sure to discuss the importance of distinguishing between practical and radical Muslims. Right Scoop has the full segment so you can get full context.Here is a roundup of reactions:

Ed Morrissey:

But then again, Williams was arguing for tolerance, and that apparently violates NPR’s “editorial standards and practices.” Clearly, NPR only wants opinion journalists that agree with the opinions of NPR, and I mean totally agree. An NPR opinion journalist had better not admit to having a normal human reaction about potential for terrorism nine years after 3,000 Americans got killed by radical Muslims on commercial air flights, or else. The rest of NPR’s cast just got an object lesson about the range of opinion tolerated by management.
But, hey, that’s NPR’s prerogative. After all, it’s not as if they’re government sponsored in any way. Oh, wait …

Michelle Malkin:

As I’ve said many times before: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.
Condolences to Juan Williams, whom I’ve debated –vigorously, but always with respect and cordiality — many times over the years.
Hope this accelerates his journey on the ideological learning curve. And I hope he doesn’t back down. …
Worth noting: NPR affiliate employee Sarah Spitz at public radio station KCRW wishes death on Rush Limbaugh…not a firing offense.

Angry White Guy:

Sucks when you fall victim to the same political correctness BS that you have inflicted time and time again and the conservatives and Tea Partier’s have condemned. I think we call it karma. NPR was wrong to fire Williams and rarely does Williams say anything I agree with, but he has a constitutional right to say it and I’d guess that most Americans give anyone on a plane dress in Muslim garb a second look. I know I would and it has nothing to do with racism… it has everything to do with historical facts that nearly every terrorist attack has been carried out by Muslims.

Jimmy Bise:

Did NPR fire Williams because of what he said or because of who he said it to? If Williams had gone on whatever passes for a news program on an NPR station, or fought his way through the cobwebs and sat down with radio-corpse Diane Rehm, there is no doubt that whatever he said would have met with some sort of rebuttal, after which Williams could have made his apologies and recited the standard boilerplate about “extremists” in Islam. However, in front of Bill O’Reilly no such admonishment would ever take place. In fact, O’Reilly would likely agree with him and who knows if that meeting of right and left minds on the matter wouldn’t have served as the long-dreaded Bat Signal that would light up the sky and signal us crazed Tea Partiers to begin our pogrom against everything even remotely Muslim.

So perhaps Williams was cashiered not for his comments, but for the venue in which he chose to haltingly air them.

Jawa:

OK, I see. NPR’s policy seems to be if you don’t have your nose up Steve Inskeep’s a$$ and agree with his obvious anti-war, America sucks narrative you’re out. Truth be damned.

Redstate:

For reference, NPR recently ran a segment on how to speak “tea bagger”.

All Juan Williams did is say both exactly how he feels and how many, many other Americans feel on this subject.

The man’s body of work makes clear he is no bigot. But we sure can’t offend muslims can we?

This is disgusting. But then the official state run media cannot have anyone expressing anything that might reflect what actual Americans think regarding Islamofascists because there is officially no such thing according to the Obama Administration.

I would encourage you to go here and tell the NPR Ombudsman what you think considering NPR is perfectly willing to teach you how to speak tea bagger, but cannot let one of its contributors express his feelings on Islam and terrorism.

PJ Salvatore wants to know when we can stop pretending NPR is serious radio and pull the plug on public funding. It’s past time if you ask me. Ugggghhh! Of course CAIR wants their hands in this pot.

Rottweiller has a thought experiment:

A thought experiment: Imagine that, out of the blue, a string of murders are committed in your city and the perp or perps were all seen to be wearing fedoras. Would you become apprehensive if a guy in a fedora walked into the mall while you were out shopping?

If not, you’re terminally stupid in a very literal sense.

The truly retarded thing is that we’re sure the Commissars who put Juan on the chopping block feel exactly the same way when they see somebody looking like a muslim boarding their plane, so it’s not the reaction that is the firing offense, it’s the mere mention that you have it.

Ed Driscoll and the Anchoress both have great roundups.

The Anchoress gives this wisdom:

It seems like In America, we are no longer supposed to harbor doubts about anything. We’re either supposed to pretend that there is no reason to ever, ever, ever worry that someone dressed in Islamic garb might want to hijack our plane into a building (for to believe otherwise would immediately render us “bigots”) or we’re supposed to pretend that there is every reason to suspect everybody.

The truth–as usual–lies between those two false extremes.

The only thing that Juan Williams said that could possibly be construed as offensive is that he gets nervous when he sees identifiably Muslim people getting on a plane–a feeling that is no doubt shared by many millions of Americans. The tenor of his remarks was clearly that this was a regrettable association, along the lines–as Kevin [Williamson] reminds us–of that long-ago Jesse Jackson comment. Juan Williams is about as anti-Muslim as Jesse Jackson is anti-black. Indeed, consider everything else he said. Williams went on to speak up in favor of those “people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam.” He warned against painting with too broad a brush: “If you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.” He said that, in the German context, the problem is not Muslims, it’s “extremists.” And he cautioned against rhetoric that might incite anti-Muslim violence: “I don’t know what is in that guy’s head [the guy who slashed the New York City cabbie a few weeks ago]. But I’m saying, we don’t want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy.” I would say it’s unbelievable that NPR would fire Williams over this, but, of course, it is believable, and shameful.

What does Juan have to say about all this? He’s not backing down, reports Fox’s James Rosen.

“I said what I meant to say,” Juan Williams said in his defense.

See the Rosen video on the story here (if their server ever stops crashing, that is). And with all this kerfuffle, we fully expect the ACLU to come to the rescue of Juan Williams on free speech grounds.

Can it be any coincidence that recently George Soros spent millions of dollars to buy NPR a peck of “political reporters”? Perhaps the unfortunate Mr. Williams didn’t quite fit into Mr. Soros’s mould of a modern NPR “political reporter.” Indeed, the aims of radical Muslims and of Soros himself are actually not that far off, if you think about it.

All this, from a “news” organization funded in large proportion by your tax dollars. Just makes you feel warm inside, doesn’t it? Warm enough to write your congressman?

UPDATE: How soon will it be before NPR goes head-on after FNC regular contributor Mara Liasson, you may ask? They already have.

It’s also not the first time NPR had a problem with the fact of one its reporters appeared on Fox. Last December, according to Politico, NPR tried to strong-arm Political Correspondent Mara Liasson off of Fox News.

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October [2009] by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

The Liasson request was also part of White House’s “war” against Fox News.

It’s only a matter of time.

FURTHER UPDATE: Meanwhile, NPR’s CEO Vivian Schiller not-so-indirectly suggests that Williams might benefit from a little psychiatric help to get over his Islamophobia. (Hat Tip: GoY)