I'm writing in response to TJ Jourian's column ("Hardship, bigotry exists in U.S., must be taken care of now," SN 6/12). Being of both Lebanese and Syrian decent, I am troubled by the column.

First and foremost, when writing a column condemning bigotry, statements like "What is wrong with you people? What makes you so completely arrogant that you think you know what is best for everyone else, when you yourself are extremely far from perfect?" detract from or ruin the point. Who are "you people?"

Is Jourian stereotyping all people with a white skin tone as racists? Would Jourian refer to the African-American community as "you people?" I am personally offended by this statement and believe it is evidence Jourian might be a bigot. Other terms used in the column (i.e. "the Mexicans, the blacks, the queers") are also quite insensitive and generally considered offensive.

As for the Meijer incident, I would like to suggest there are two sides to every story. Did Jourian hear an audio recording of the events that day? Is Jourian assuming what Mohammed Karhani is saying is true? Maybe Jourian's perception of the clerk's body language on the tape is simply that: Jourian's perception, not reality. If this incident did occur as Karhani claims then I would be the first calling for the clerk's dismissal.

Jourian must learn the meaning of "fair and balanced." Jourian should learn to see more than one side of a story and that everyone, including Karhani, has an angle and an agenda.

I am not "visibly" Arabic, I am not a homosexual, I am not "working class poor," I am not disabled, I do not have AIDS and I am not a bigot as Jourian's article seems to suggest.

If Jourian does not want to be stereotyped, then Jourian should stop stereotyping. If Jourian doesn't like bias, Jourian needs to stop being so biased.

Stephen R. Emsley
Farmington Hills resident