NY Times Totally Worried About The Price Of Fear

The Editorial Board, comprised mostly of White People and men who live a nice 1%er life, is Very Concerned that everyone will overreact to the threat from ISIS and, primarily, wants to defend the “Syrian” refugees to Obama’s satisfaction

The Price of Fear

After the attacks in Paris, the world is again challenged by fear. With every bombing, beheading and mass shooting, the dread spreads, along with the urgency of defeating this nihilism.

But no less a challenge for the civilized world is the danger of self-inflicted injury. In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism comes the risk that society will lose its way.

What do they see as overreactions? The Iraq War (they just can’t get over it), which they initially supported, along with the majority of Democrats and intelligence agencies. Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which holds/held lots of stone cold jihadis, whom are called “perceived threats” by the EB. They do have a point on the expansion of the “ever-expanding surveillance apparatus”, which their Democratic elected officials seem to support.

Al Qaeda and the Islamic State did not compel us to shackle ourselves to a security state, or to disgrace our values by vilifying and fearing refugees and immigrants.

Yet, is this a perceived fear, or a true concern? In sales we refer to questions and concerns, and not to conflate questions with real concerns. A question is “how much does this cost?” A concern is “I’m not sure I can afford it”. The American people seem to be more in terms of asking a question, namely “how can we be assured that these refugees from places that feature hardcore Islam will not be extremists, and will be valued members of the USA?”

As for the members of the House, Democratic and Republican, who voted to effectively shut down the Syrian and Iraqi refugee program, and the governors who would somehow block Syrians from their borders — Americans should hope it’s just fearful ignorance that clouds their vision, and that in time it clears.

The bill in question requires several key members of the Obama administration to sign off on the background checks of each Syrian refugee, putting them on record. They do not want to do this. That’s how it “effectively shuts down” the refugee program. If these refugees were so darned safe, they’d have no problem signing off. They are obviously fearful of the potential fallout and have concerns over the background checks

Terrorist violence is terrifying, and it is natural to want to restore a shattered sense of safety. But the best way to do that has always been to draw upon our greatest ideals.

Our greatest ideals include protecting the citizenry from foreign threats. Humorously, the NY Times is the same paper that, well, let’s say, craps itself in fear over anthropogenic climate change constantly, like a 3 year old who thinks something moved under the bed or that the closet door moved. Concern for Islamic jihadis is very real, and poll after poll after poll show that the American People are concerned over that very real threat. Liberals worry about ACC, which is as imaginary as the monster under the bed and the boogeyman in the closet.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “NY Times Totally Worried About The Price Of Fear”

  1. john says:

    Teach 170,000 Americans have been murdered here in the USA since 9/11
    Why does the rightwing continue to do the bidding of ISIS? Whty do they constantly surrender to fear?
    Maybe you should bring back that surrender monkey and have him waving the white flag and promising to not admit any refugees like ISIS wants.
    Or maybe you should have him telling the GOP led Congress to CONTINUE to give Obama either a declaration for war http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/11/congress-must-explicitly-authorize-obamas-mission-against-syria/
    even HotAir says they should. This is one reeason why the GOP Congress has an approval rating of 16% about 1/3 of what the last Dem Congress had

  2. david7134 says:

    Why are we concerned about our safety? Maybe it is because we are stuck with the worst president in our history at a critical time. Or, maybe we can look at the war dead under Obama and see that it is proportionally much greater than any other conflict secondary to his insistence on absurd ROE’s that assure deaths to our soldiers. Or, maybe it is the stupid security we face daily over the last 20 years are more as we board an airplane or approach any other sensitive area were they are not profiling and paying attention to the potential bad guys, only the people who are sure not to cause trouble. The list can go on, so, lets stop Muslims coming here till it is changed.

  3. jl says:

    John-Really? Between that same time there were between 350000-400000 deaths in automobiles. So your point is…..? “Rightwing continue to do the bidding of ISIS”. Let’s examine that. ISIS obviously wants to keep moving and growing, correct? And Obama has done basically nothing to stop them. 75% of the air strikes that our military want to use are turned down by Obama. So John, when will Obama and the Dems stop doing the bidding of ISIS? The rightwing, including most of the presidential contenders, want them decimated. If the right wing wants them killed, how in the world are they “doing their bidding”? ISIS has been butchering people long before there was any refugee “crisis” as anyone with a brain would know. Do you actually think they’d go away if we took in the refugees? Unfortunately, you probably do. Anyway, ISIS came about for a great extent because of Obma’s M.E. policies. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan created a vacuum that helped allow them to form.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    A lot of strawmen hanging with ‘tarded johnny in the official Bong Recreational Area of the Queens nervous hospital,

  5. gitarcarver says:

    john wrote:

    even HotAir says they should.

    Once again john shows he cannot read.

    From the very article he cited:

    Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are demanding that President Barack Obama seek their explicit approval for a new war in the Middle East, and it would be shortsighted for the president to ignore them.

    The first and most salient reason why the president should seek out a congressional vote on a resolution authorizing force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is that no such authorization currently exists.

    The date on the article shows that it was written in September of 2014, 5 months before Obama even proposed a AUMF.

    How john expects the Congress to authorize something that Obama has not even proposed is unclear.

    When Obama did propose a AUMF, it was DOA because it allowed boots on the ground (according to Democrats) and too restrictive for the military (according to Republicans.)

    From the Hill in February:

    President Obama’s request that Congress authorize military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was met with skepticism from both parties on Wednesday, raising questions about Capitol Hill’s ability to pass a war measure.

    The divide is largely centered on language prohibiting the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations” against ISIS.

    Democrats say this does too little to limit the White House from committing ground troops to the fight, while Republicans say the restrictions could handcuff the military.

    Obama asked for an AUMF that neither party liked and would pass. That was not by accident. That was by design. This way Obama can claim that the Congress won’t do what he wants and needs.

    Obama, the so called “Constitutional lawyer” really needs to read the Constitution again as it seems beyond his grasp.

    I would say that john needs to do the same, but we know that a document without pictures is above his reading level.

Pirate's Cove