Quote :

"I want Arabs to get sexed up like nothing else. And Arab students at UNC don’t seem to think that’s such a bad idea. “(Racial profiling) really doesn’t bother me,” said Sherief Khaki, a first-generation Egyptian-American and representative of the UNC-CH Arabic Club. “So a couple of hours are wasted. Big deal.” Said Muhammad Salameh, a junior biology major: “I can accept it, even if I don’t like it. I don’t want to die.”"

hmmm, do you think they really want arabs to be sexed up?

Quote :

"But either way, when I talked to all three of them Wednesday, they told me they felt not only lied to, but betrayed. None of them support racial profiling. None of them want Arabs to get “sexed up” as they go through the airport. And none of them thought Bandes would use their words the way she did — callously and without regard for their actual meaning. In other words, their quotes were wrong, even if the words were correct. They were used recklessly and thoughtlessly."

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 10:50 PM. Reason : added his response to that part]

9/15/2005 10:48:49 PM

Quote :

"The guy isn't fucking obligated to give a dissertation in the column"

He's not obligated, but it would go a long way to proving that he's right, wouldn't it? It doesn't take much time to write out the entire paragraph of spoken words, or the question that she actually asked... Otherwise its like someone coming on here saying "90% of Americans have had gay sex." Sure, you aint obligated to defend that statement, but I sure as fuck aint gonna believe it, and pretty much every on here will say "ummm, src plz."

Quote :

"hmmm, do you think they really want arabs to be sexed up?"

Actually, no. I have critical thinking skills and can tell that they didn't mean that. I took that to mean "I think we should be exhaustive in our efforts of searching suspicious people." And anyone with a logical operating mind would see that as the same thing. This girl went over the top for the purpose of being over the top. And she likely expected people to be smart enough to see that thats what she was doing. Only idiots would think that she really meant to sex people up... Its called hyperbole.

Quote :

"But either way, when I talked to all three of them Wednesday, they told me they felt not only lied to, but betrayed."

And you know what else? I just talked to Bill Gates yesterday and he said you are a faggot. But I don't have to prove that he said it... I'll just say he did, and thats good enough.

9/15/2005 10:59:32 PM

actually nevermind you are right


this guy just made it up


he decided libel is the way to go, he really wants the lawsuit

and since i realize you dont know what that is
http://www.formfolks.com/legal_dictionary/L.htm


[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 11:16 PM. Reason : pontless with this guy]

9/15/2005 11:01:33 PM

oh, but he will! I promise!

and when he presents his notes, I'll say "why didn't you check this BEFORE you ran the article? HMMMMM?"

9/15/2005 11:04:46 PM

I agree with aaron for the most part.

DTH editor justifies firing her because of journalistic malpractice, when it seems pretty clear that she was fired because of the unpopularity of her racist column.

Journalistic malpractice happens all the time. This time, a lot of people complained about the story. The editor uses journalistic malpractice to fire her instead of firing her because of the sensitivity of her racial comments simply to save his own liberal identity and preserve his belief in free speech.

She probably did use journalistic malpractice, but that wasn't the reason she was fired. She was fired because she pissed everyone off with her racist crap... or maybe because she's just a stupid jew.

9/15/2005 11:11:35 PM

ACTUALLY, SHE WAS FIRED SO THAT THE NWO COULD MAKE IT LOOK LIKE JEWS AREN'T ABOVE THE LAW!!!

HERES PROOF!

http://www.crazyblogger.com/crazyperson/crazytheory/EVILJEWS!!!!!!/UNCJEWWORLDORDER.html
[/salisburyboy]

9/15/2005 11:14:03 PM

OMG COMSPIRATWA!!!

9/15/2005 11:15:25 PM

that is the same girl that copied the sorostitute article

9/16/2005 12:38:06 AM

I couldn't tell if that chick really wanted Arabs to be strip searched, or if she just wanted them to be searched more often. The way it was written, it's not too clear, and that's probably the reason people reacted so badly. If she had made it clear that she really wasn't for unconditional strip-searching of arabs, and that that line was just for "shock" value to draw people to the article, she could have gotten away with it.

But, as someone else noted, it's crappy writing (or the chick is just a dumb racist).

9/16/2005 12:48:36 AM

^ DON'T YOU KNOW? ALL OF THE REPUBLOFASCISTS THINK THAT WAY!!! SHE REALLY WANTS THEM ALL STRIPSEARCHED IN PUBLIC, CAUSE THAT WHAT ALL REPUBLOFASCISTS WANT!!! I TOLD YOU THEY WERE EVIL!!!!

9/16/2005 12:52:59 AM

i think what may have happened is this guy got complaints from people whose names appeared in the article, saying they had been misquoted. and for this, she was fired.

also, school newspapers i don't think have the manpower to check every source like a major daily paper does.

[Edited on September 16, 2005 at 1:59 AM. Reason : ..]

9/16/2005 1:58:34 AM

Regardless of having the manpower to check every source upon editing the material they should have known the type of response this could receive. How hard would it have been to check at least one of the sources in the small pool of people at a university?

9/16/2005 2:14:58 AM

OK...let's think about this.

If we assume that the newspaper is only there to sell ads, then what would they need? Readers.

If the paper has a columnist that everyone loves to hate, people will read just to hate her, and in doing so, would see all those beautiful ads.

Say she was fired for being offensive, OK, I can run with that. You don't want to alienate people, but those who said she was fired because the editor didn't agree with her? Couldn't be further from the truth.

I've known seven or eight editors throughout my young career in newspaper, and none of them would fire someone because they disagreed.

9/16/2005 9:54:56 AM

yeah but the guy didn't fire her b/c he disagreed...he fired her b/c of how she treated her sources and how she spun their comments. Regardless of her opinion/stance on Arabs...she was unethical in her approach. That's what got her fired.

9/16/2005 10:07:45 AM

Yes I understand that.

I'm just saying for those who don't believe that's the reason, and there are a few, inexplicably.

If you don't believe that's the real reason, it certainly isn't because the editor disagreed. I know she was fired because of the unethical things.

9/16/2005 10:09:24 AM

No, he actually fired her because the paper was getting all types of bad press and heat from muslims and arabs and hippies and everybody...its a PR move

9/16/2005 10:11:16 AM

He should have told her he was going to fire her unless she sexed him up. Then if she declined, he could fire her and say he did so because she made a sexual advance towards him. If she agrees, he could still fire her anyway for trying to bribe him with sex.

9/16/2005 10:45:44 AM

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_09_11_patriotboy_archive.html#112684413097448633

HAH! HAHAHAHHAHA!

She's like Ann Coulter without the penis

Jillian Bandes
Coulter Center for Applied Bigotry

Dear Miss Bandes,

I don't usually read college newspapers. There are just too many things I don't understand in them. That frightens me and therefore causes me to burn the newspaper. That's usually not enough, so I end up going out and taunting a brown person or an effeminate male until I feel better. It's the reaction most of us here in the Heartland have when we're confronted with things we don't understand.

Someone sent me a link to your article in the Daily Tar Heel, and surprisingly enough, I understood it (thank God for that--I can't afford to burn my computer). Unlike most columnists, you don't dance around your hated of swarthy people. You come right out and write things like this:

I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport.

[...]

When asked if she had a boyfriend, Ann Coulter once said that any time she had a need for physical intimacy, she would simply walk through an airportÃ??s security checkpoint.

I want Arabs to get sexed up like nothing else.


I couldn't agree more. I've felt that way ever since I saw my first Abu Gharib human pyramid. But it might be difficult to sell it to those who don't value humiliating brown people as much as we do.

We need to show them that getting your orifices probed for no reason other than your DNA is no big deal. I think you're the perfect person to do that. You represent Our Leader's ideal woman--you're white, blonde, and unemployed. If you'll happily consent to having someone shove their fingers up your various cavities, then the defenders of the not-really-American swarthy people will have no reason to complain.

For the maximum amount of exposure, I think you should do it during half-time on the 50 yard line at every Tar Heels game. We could get even more coverage by inviting celebrities like John Bolton and Michelle Malkin to conduct the examinations. Bolton would have to be last, because I'm sure that once he's shoved his hand up a person's ass, there'll be no stopping him--he'd take a shiv to all the subsequent celebrities if they don't allow him to replace them. The sight of all that blood might make you uncomfortable and thus defeat the purpose of these public examinations.

Well, what do you think? Are you ready to serve your country in this way?

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

P.S. I bet your article made Cliff May proud that he selected you to be a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. We could ask him to be a celebrity prober if you'd like.

9/16/2005 2:15:35 PM

Quote :

"Say she was fired for being offensive, OK, I can run with that. You don't want to alienate people, but those who said she was fired because the editor didn't agree with her? Couldn't be further from the truth."

I don't think anyone is saying she was fired because the editor didn't agree with her. I'm claiming that she was fired for being offensive...

Firing her for journalistic malpractice looks a lot better then firing her because she was racist(her opinion sucked in the opinion column).

Maybe she did use journalistic malpractice. I just don't see it in the article. It doesn't appear as though "she strung together quotes out of context" or that "she took sources' words out of context." Maybe, she mislead her sources duing her interviews, but the DTH editor didn't say in what way she may have done that. Of course, nobody but the said columnist and interviewees' would know what exactly happened during these interviews.

Firing her for journalistic malpractice allows the DTH to continue it's liberal appearance. However, this is a violation of her first amendment rights... even if her opinion was racist/unpopular/wrong/jewish.

To be honest, I don't really give a shit about the first amendment. Freedom of speech shouldn't entail freedom to have dumbass racist opinions. I'm glad that she was fired. However, this seems to me to be the DTHs way of getting around the first amendment.

[Edited on September 16, 2005 at 9:15 PM. Reason : der]

9/16/2005 9:09:57 PM

Quote :

"though "she strung together quotes out of context" or that "she took sources' words out of context.""

did you read the qoutes?

do you really think thats what those muslim students were saying?

really?

9/16/2005 9:52:30 PM

yes... did you?

Quote :

"“(Racial profiling) really doesn’t bother me,” said Sherief Khaki, a first-generation Egyptian-American and representative of the UNC-CH Arabic Club. “So a couple of hours are wasted. Big deal.” Said Muhammad Salameh, a junior biology major: “I can accept it, even if I don’t like it. I don’t want to die.” Professor Nasser Isleem, a man for whom I have complete and utter respect after merely two weeks of sitting in his Arabic 101 class, said, “Let them search.” “It depends on how I’m stopped, but if it is done in a professional manner … ” Then he nodded. “There were Muslims in those buildings, too.”"

Please tell me which quote the muslim students were not actually saying...

[Edited on September 16, 2005 at 10:18 PM. Reason : s]

9/16/2005 10:12:16 PM

actually, no where in the first amendment does it say that she has a right to say what she wants in a paper. it says individuals have freedom of speech, not that their speech should be amplified in a daily newspaper. it says that the "press" has freedom of speech but the press can censor themselves.

9/16/2005 10:40:07 PM

^yes, my bad... I thought of that after posting. However, I wish that the DTH would just come out and say that instead of journalistic malpractice.

Her own thoughts on her termination.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/432a4ce19fe9e

the only line from her article that I can conceve as being journalistic malpractice is

Quote :

"I want Arabs to get sexed up like nothing else. And Arab students at UNC don’t seem to think that’s such a bad idea."

I see that as more of a misinterpretation... she refers to it as a poor attempt at a desired humorous effect. She didn't misquote them, or use their quotes to complement an unrelated topic...


[Edited on September 16, 2005 at 11:26 PM. Reason : a]

9/16/2005 11:13:52 PM

Quote :

"Freedom of speech shouldn't entail freedom to have dumbass racist opinions."

you are right. it doesn't entail the right to have them. but it does entail the right to say them.

9/17/2005 1:27:43 PM

Quote :

"because when's the last time an Arab was a perfectly acceptable member of society? the answer is right now, and you can't treat 99% of them like shit because of the 1% who should be skinned alive and drowned in urine."

[Edited on September 17, 2005 at 3:57 PM. Reason : quote]

9/17/2005 3:57:15 PM

Quote :

"you are right. it doesn't entail the right to have them. but it does entail the right to say them. "

She still has the right to say them, just not with the DTH.

9/17/2005 3:59:37 PM

Quote :

"Please tell me which quote the muslim students were not actually saying... "

you answered your own question in your next post

9/17/2005 10:17:06 PM

^You said the quotes weren't what the muslim students were saying.

What I posted wasn't a quote from muslim students. Those were Jew words.

9/17/2005 11:01:39 PM

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2005/10/05/159402.html
don't bash the "source." she was writing for the Orlando Sentinel

Anyway, here goes:

Quote :

"The First Amendment has been getting a workout in recent weeks on two college campuses - the University of Florida and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - where students are learning that free speech is a messy business. The two cases, one involving a columnist at UNC and the other a political cartoonist at UF, have inflamed minority groups - Muslims and blacks, respectively - provoking protests and debate. That's the good news insofar as protest and debate are the currency of free speech. What's not such good news is that the columnist was fired, while the Florida cartoonist has been condemned and threatened. Both students have been virtually abandoned by university officials, some of whom apparently are more concerned about burnishing their multiculti self-images than in demonstrating the importance of a founding principle that finds itself on increasingly shaky ground these days. Exhibit A is Jillian Bandes, a former columnist for UNC's The Daily Tar Heel. Her column, which was intended to make a case for racial profiling in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, began hyperbolically: "I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport." Then she proceeded to quote several Arab students and a professor who said they wouldn't mind being searched. Some of them subsequently claimed their remarks had been taken out of context, an unprecedented development in journalism history. Bandes was fired. One could make a strong argument that Bandes' column was silly, amateurish, lacking in taste, strident and ineffective. Being outrageous for the sake of outrage requires no special talent. Witness Howard Stern. But people have a clear and protected right to be both silly and amateurish. Bandes' editor claimed that he fired her for "journalistic malpractice," for taking quotes out of context, not in response to pressure. Without contradicting him, I can only say that in 25 years with newspapers, I've never known anyone to be fired when a story's subjects didn't like the way quotes were used. In Gainesville, Fla., where the First Amendment argument is more clear-cut, cartoonist Andy Marlette drew an image that has angered some black groups. Yes, a new generation has produced another Marlette. This one is the nephew of Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist and author, Doug Marlette, whose talent as an equal-opportunity offender apparently seeped into the family gene pool. Marlette the Younger's cartoon in the Independent Florida Alligator was a commentary on rapper Kanye West's remarks following Hurricane Katrina that: "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Marlette drew a cartoon of West holding an oversized playing card labeled "The Race Card," with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying, "Nigga Please!" The N-word makes me cringe . . . especially every time I hear Kanye West say it. His spicy songs, including his current hit, "Gold Digger," are liberally seasoned with the word "nigga," often couched in violence and obscenity. But when I imagine the immaculate and proper Condi Rice saying it, especially to a "brotha"' who has made a fortune playing the bad boy, it makes me laugh. Which is to say Marlette's cartoon hit the mark. It was sophisticated, irreverent and funny. His use of West's own language to parody the rapper's political statement was, in fact, the Art of the cartoon. Yet, certain campus groups and administrators were outraged. This, despite the fact that the same student government that pulled ads from the Alligator is paying West to drop the N-Bomb in concert at the university in a few days. Thus, UF's reputation as a party school unburdened by intellectual heavy-lifting remains intact. It's hardly surprising that students don't understand that the First Amendment which protects Marlette's and Brandes' right to voice unpopular opinions also protects West's "music," as well as their right to protest. A recent nationwide study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that one of four college students couldn't name any of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. It's downright disturbing, however, when faculty and administrators' understanding is little better. While some journalism professors have embraced the cartoon debate as a teaching opportunity, others - including UF President Bernie Machen - have behaved like Church Ladies, pursing lips and wagging fingers instead of brandishing swords in defense of liberty. The painful irony is that those minorities whose sensibilities have been offended are historically the first to suffer when free speech goes. Not so long ago, blacks were lynched in this country for trying to voice their opinions at the polls. Which is why African-Americans especially - and now Arab-Americans troubled by the specter of discrimination - should be the loudest voices in supporting the freedoms that permit even speech they find offensive. It's a messy job, but everybody's got to do it. "

marlette's original cartoon:


amusing alternate:

10/8/2005 5:38:20 PM

i dont understand how the university "abandoned" Jillian Bandes

i thought the dth was independantly run

10/8/2005 5:43:14 PM

i suppose one could make the case that since UNC has a journalism school that maybe some of the professors should have stepped up and said something...

10/8/2005 6:34:51 PM

Quote :

"And you can’t debate that while most Arabs are not terrorists, sadly, most terrorists are indeed Arab."

Quote :

"If 19 blond-haired, blue-eyed, Caucasian Jews had plowed into the World Trade Center with two jumbo jets, I would demand to be interrogated every time I browsed Cheapflights.com."

lol

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 1:16:51 AM

Quote :

""And you can’t debate that while most Arabs are not terrorists, sadly, most terrorists are indeed Arab.""

what? are you kidding. sadly, most terrorists talked about on american t.v. since 9/11 are indeed arab.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-03-india_x.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/31/rudolph.main/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2174986.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/13/ireland.explosives.ap/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-12-06-dc-arson_x.htm


and plus, not all terrorism is bad.

10/9/2005 1:37:57 PM

Quote :

"and plus, not all terrorism is bad."

you had a good post, then you went and ruined it by bringing up the fact that you're a goddamned idiot.

10/9/2005 1:56:16 PM

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

think about the revolutionary war here in the states and youre bound to think of at least a few instances that fall under the blanket of "terrorism". its a broad term.

10/9/2005 2:02:22 PM

all action in the revolutionary war was by and against military targets. we fought the british military. they fought us. we were organized into armies under distinct flags.

10/9/2005 2:08:04 PM

^^^WOW, i thought you liberals were dumb, but this just proves it. Lets see: what group of people has taken out a JIHAD on your entire country (which you probably hate)? Oh wait, I guess with that last comment, YOU are a terrorist. might need to call someone about that...

10/9/2005 2:08:30 PM

^^im talking about instances such as the tar and feathering of tax collectors (actions by civilians against government targets meant to intimidate and obtain political gain in the long run)

10/9/2005 2:09:48 PM

yeah i can see how you'd equate that with the sawing off the heads of civilians

10/9/2005 2:10:41 PM

George Washington was a terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10/9/2005 2:11:32 PM

^^its a broad term. it doesnt have to be something that extreme.

10/9/2005 2:13:10 PM

okay if we're going to be real broad i'll say that you're a goddamned idiot and you can be anywhere between complete moron and fucking genius.

10/9/2005 2:15:18 PM

ok, yeah, youre right. terrorism=extreme acts of violence (ie: blowing up buildings, cutting off heads) meant to kill americans in the name of allah or white power or whatever. happy?



[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 2:17:33 PM

terrorism=extreme acts of violence (ie: blowing up buildings, cutting off heads) meant to kill americans in the name of allah or white power or whatever.

10/9/2005 5:35:14 PM

tarring and feathering often resulted in a slow and painful death. Even if the victim didn't die, they'd be pretty disfigured. Pouring hot tar on someone's skin seems pretty extreme to me. So even with your limited definition it would still qualify as terrorism. Especially when done to a political figure.

10/9/2005 6:01:41 PM

yeah, lets just leave them alone. nothing wrong with a little terror

10/9/2005 7:50:29 PM

who is advocating leaving terrorists alone?

whats that? no one? ok thats what i thought

10/9/2005 7:51:17 PM

yeah, I've got to agree with whoever said that the Americans were guilty of terrorism during the revolutionary war. tarring and feathering was pretty much part-and-parcel terrorism. Granted, its a bit different than terrorism today, because then it was directed at the actual parties involved (IE, tax collectors, the british gov't), whereas today terrorism is directed at civilians, who I think we can all agree are a bit less connected to the terrorists' beefs than were the tax colletors with the colonists'. Both groups, though, are wrong in doing what they did.

10/9/2005 9:03:42 PM

killing civilians is terrorism. killing government officials and military personnel in a time of war is just warfare.

i swear, this isn't hard people.

10/9/2005 9:07:03 PM

i dunno. I'd have to look at the tarring and feathering as more of a vigilante-type justice than actual warfare, but eh...

10/9/2005 9:19:59 PM