Skip to content

Prejudiced, Violent People Disagree with Buffalo News, Reports Buffalo News

by on March 26, 2010

It would be nice if the area’s only daily paper devoted space to examining whether or not a the passage of a health bill a clear majority of Americans don’t want despite receiving a seal of approval from a murderously tyrannical dictator is going to damage the country.  But the staffers at The Buffalo News are too busy toiling as voluntary deputies on violent racist teabagger patrol.

That’s apparently why the lead story in Thursday’s edition, helpfully titled “Health Bill Backers Face Threats,” connected a handful of cementheads with the overwhelming, principled opposition to a broad seizure of private industry:

Unrest over sweeping federal health care legislation has turned to vandalism and threats, with bricks hurled through Democrats’ windows, a propane line cut at the home of a congressman’s brother and menacing phone messages left for lawmakers who supported the bill.

The FBI is investigating the reports, which include shattered windows at Democratic offices in Arizona and Kansas as well as the Niagara Falls district office of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport.

At least 10 members of Congress have reported some sort of threat, although no arrests have been made.

So, that’s about 15 idiots who have been nasty assuming every report pans out as true, then?  Yeah, it’s best to do a story on them instead of the one or two hundred million people who hold legitimate objections to the scheme.  On top of that, don’t forget to blame the damage and verbal abuse upon the elected officials sharing the rational alternative view.  After all, they somehow provoked the crimes by voting “Nay:”

 “It’s more disturbing to me that Republican leadership has not condemned these attacks and instead appears to be fanning the flames with coded rhetoric,” said Slaughter, a key supporter of the bill.

Has Nancy Pelosi’s regional minion also condemned intimidation aimed at female and Jewish Republican representatives, Tea Party activists, limited-government advocates, and a House member who was harassed during the time he was standing against Obamacare?  Of course the vandalism and ominous calls are disgusting.  But almost as bad is Slaughter’s assumption that members of the “Republican leadership” are responsible for smashed windows because they stood against federal meddling in the health system.

They have no obligation to dissociate themselves from something they didn’t do or endorse.  Wait, maybe they are responsible: as Deeming Louise points out, this is a case of those infamous conservative “code words” in action.

Liberals are uncannily skilled at spotting hidden diabolical phrases even though nobody else recognizes them, as vile reactionaries subconsciously reveal their true nature through remarks that are construed as hateful by those that happen to be looking for hatefulness.

Those on the right should be more blatant like Ms. Slaughter in their rhetoric.  Specifically, conservatives should use disgustingly manipulative stories about old sisters’ fake teeth to sell health care before trying to shred the Constitution with a brazen proposal to not hold a vote on a bill.  Those on the right should be as honest about themselves.

Or they could just invent ugly incidents like professional Democrats.  The story also includes accounts of some vile, fictional behavior from anti-health bill picketers:

Protests swirled around the Capitol during the health care debate last weekend. Demonstrators hurled racial slurs at several black lawmakers, including Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., the civil rights pioneer.

Another protester spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who also is black.

Those incidents would be awful, if only they had happened.  The problem is that it has emerged that they didn’t:

A protester has his hands cupped around his mouth to yell something and it looks like some spittle hits Cleaver, who later accused the guy, and I quote, of having “allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Voila — a racial incident worthy of national headlines capped by a congressional press release noting that the spitter/spittler had been arrested. Except that he wasn’t: He was briefly detained and then let go. This was supposedly also around the time that tea partiers were shouting racial slurs at Cleaver, John Lewis, and other black congressmen. Listen closely and you … won’t hear any.

But lack of proof didn’t stop The News from disgustingly reprinting the accusations as if it had been established that they absolutely happened.  Uncorroborated stories disproved by recordings didn’t dissuade the rag’s editors from running Lewis’s debunked claim, or obligingly noting that he was a “civil rights pioneer” while they were at it.  Why worry about facts when you know the protesters are at least guilty in their hearts?

Of course, this is the same newspaper that thinks a racist, hyper-leftist intellectual lightweight who can’t write deserves a column.  Rod Watson’s weekly laugh riot, which ran in the same edition, included a disclaimer about why his contribution was so hard to understand:

WARNING: The following column may contain satire, hyperbole and other literary devices. Do not swallow whole. Keep away from small children—and adults who think like them.

If you have to explain the joke, you didn’t tell it properly.  But the rest of the piece is hilarious, although perhaps unintentionally so.  As a painful example, consider his claim about how the government will reduce the deficit while giving 30 million people insurance:

Congress’ nonpartisan budget scorers already explained it: By using the purchasing power of the exchanges, expanding the risk pool, taxing high-cost plans and the like.

But it won’t save nearly as much as it could have if critics hadn’t made single-payer a nonstarter and killed the public option.

Of course, anyone following the health debate should know that, nonpartisan status aside, the CBO only works with bills as they are written;  the agency performs calculations based upon the fairy tales they’re handed.  But buffoonish ignorance hasn’t stopped Watson before.

The rest is more of the same: he spent this edition lamely suggesting that people who disagree with his advocacy of a radical single-payer health system belong to something called the “idiotocracy.”  Either sighing or yawning would be an appropriate reaction.  Watson’s claim that his foes are mentally limited stands as the equivalent of expert swindler Charlie Rangel acting as if he’s qualified to issue tax advice.  Unfortunately, the latter also really happened.

I’ll mercifully spare you further examples of Watson’s prose, although you can click if you must; if you’ve read one of his poorly-reasoned, spiteful, mendacious tracts before, you’ve endured enough and gotten the point of this week’s try.

But he fits perfectly at the city’s paper.  Portraying Democraticare supporters as victims for expressing their beliefs in an A1 story is a sad attempt to make them look courageous.  Throw in a few isolated incidents, ridiculous suggestions that Republican politicians are somehow responsible for the violence, and refuted allegations against protesters, and it amounts to a transparent attack against the other side.  They didn’t even bother to use code words.

The News could have provided an evenhanded look at both sides of the incredibly polarizing legislation.  But they’d prefer to put Republicans on the defensive with reporting framed by a biased perspective supplemented by pathetic a harangue from an amateurish bore of a columnist.

This won’t be the last time the staff lumps together a statistically infinitesimal percentage of hoodlums with a huge swath of the conservative-leaning public.  Engaging in stereotypes is okay as long as they apply to people who disagree with the paper’s editorial positions.  They’ll presumably continue to ignore any threats made by liberals.  I’d add more about stifling dissent, but I have to go riot so I can prevent Ann Coulter from speaking on my campus.

One Comment
  1. Entitlementarians need victims… The Reichstag is on fire, the Tea Partiers are terrorists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: