Tag Archives: reading comprehension

Thankfully, More WNYers Listen to Country Music

30 Apr

A few weeks ago, I criticized Buffalo’s worst Brian Griffin impersonator for asserting that the United States government is a greater threat than al Qaeda. This coming from someone who was a big supporter of Bush-era, post-9/11 fearmongering, who was a huge supporter of the Patriot Act, an Iraq War backer, and who enjoyed labeling opponents of Bush-era policies as traitors. The irony is delicious. 

Now, this: 

Anyone who disagrees with Bauerle’s weltanschauung is, nowadays, simply a member of the “lunatic left”. More irony, as he posts a link to an idiotarian birther website to “prove” his point. But what is actually shown at that WND link? Is there some confirmation there that Americans tend to agree with Mr. Bauerle’s conclusion that Islamic jihadist terrorist organization al Qaeda is a more desirable master than the participatory representative democracy of the United States? 

No. 

What’s shown there is something that -for WND.com – is uncharacteristically reasonable and completely believable. 

Now admittedly, the author at WND has reading comprehension skills that are as poor as that of the AM morning zookeeper who is #2 to country music in the nation’s 56th largest market

According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep citizens safe.

Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of three and wounded more than 280 – the polls indicate Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

Wait a minute. Being hesitant to give up freedoms doesn’t equate with “fear” of government. 

A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found Americans responded very differently than after 9/11.

For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.

In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.

But after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

To me, it doesn’t mean that Americans fear government. Instead, it means people have lost their fear of terrorism. It means that America is growing up and understanding that one’s constitutional liberties must be preserved, protected, and maintained even in the face of occasional mayhem, death, and cruelty. It means that the terrorists have lost if we no longer fear them to the point where we agree willingly to sacrifice our liberties and our way of life. 

Not everyone lost their minds when Obama was elected and then re-elected. 

It takes an especial kind of intense hatred and ignorance to draw the conclusion that WND and WBEN’s shining star make here, but it’s what you get when you live in a country with the freedom to speak even the most rank stupidity – so stupid that it reveals your prejudices and your inability to engage in logical thought.

By not “fearing government” and instead fearing terrorism after 9/11, we let too many things go. Patriot Act, overdone security porn at airports, billions to equip police with military equipment, and a detention center in Cuba that is nothing more than an air conditioned, extralegal death row. Americans indeed need to take back our liberties – liberties that were deliberately and systematically abused and withdrawn by the prior administration Mr. Bauerle contemporaneously adored. 

We don’t win the war on terror by indefinitely detaining bad guys – we make more bad guys. We don’t win the war on terror by raining ordinance on remote Pakistani or Yemeni villages using drones – we make more bad guys. Ultimately, we need to understand that there will always be bad guys who want to do us harm, and we can do what we can to keep us safe, but not to the point of fundamentally changing what America is. 

That police power vs. safety debate is an important one to have, but when dishonest cretins misapprehend what it’s all about, and use lies to inflame the hatred and fear of people too dumb to click the link and read, then there’s no debate to be had. They just need to be told to go to hell

Anatomy of A Dumb Rightist Blog Post

1 Mar

1. Have your feelings hurt because someone else called you out for blatant partisan hypocrisy.

2. Put finger to keyboard. Take a stated fact – “Ian Murphy is considering a run for Congress” – and extrapolate from that support and complete agreement with every facet of Ian Murphy’s existence.

3. Conduct a comprehensive Google search until you find something that Ian Murphy once wrote that you can hold up as evidence of Murphy’s unacceptability as a human being. (In this instance, an opinion piece from the Buffalo Beast called “Fuck the Troops“.)

4.  Ignore the substance of the text to which you link – whether it be the blog post or the Murphy piece – and instead comment on the profanity and the introductory paragraphs of the Murphy piece.

5. Pretend like the “Fuck the Troops” piece is the thing that Murphy and the Beast are best-known for. Completely ignore the existence of the “Loathsome” lists.

6. Because I wrote something about Ian Murphy without calling him a loathsome failure of a human being, extrapolate from that that I completely support and agree with everything he’s ever done or said. This is an extension of the Law of Hannity, where any given Democrat is called upon to condemn the supposed sins of every other Democrat, ever.

7. Get the vapors over the “f” word.

8. Lie. A lot.

9. Continue to ignore completely the fact that the last guy you fervently supported for NY-26, and whose press releases you dutifully regurgitated, suddenly quit.

9. Thank the troops for something unrelated to the troops’ mission.

10. Pepper the post with elementary-school-level writing, such as, “Bedenko thinks this is good writing and Murphy is congressional material.”

I liked it better when they accidentally let this version slip last week. Its creative, outcome-based spelling method was entertaining:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The Democrats, WFP, and Green Party have not yet rushed into selecting a nominee for a special election that hasn’t been called, and I haven’t expressed support for any candidate – named or unnamed.  Monroe Rising’s Richard Saunders lies – quite obviously and undoubtedly.

I will donate $100 to an Iraqi war veteran’s nonprofit support organization if someone from Monroe Rising will point out precisely where in this blog post I express support for Ian Murphy for Congress.