Wow. Just wow, Bob.
First, I need to address that I've been gone a while. That's because Bob has been relatively quiet, either not publishing, or what he is publishing I haven't seen, so maybe I'm getting to people; or what he has published has been personal and really just not worth attacking. I'm truly sorry to hear about his wife, and his essay about her almost made me think he has a shred of humanity. And then I picked up his May 8, 2013 edition and saw What's In a Name? So much for that idea.
I honestly do not know where to start with this. Should I begin with the straight up insanity of how Bob thinks we fight disease? His complete and utter lack of understanding of modern medicine and what really happens when antibiotics are administered is just stupefying. The whole first page, where he talks about "finding the true name of a disease" is either the worst understanding of medical science in history or the most idiotic and painful metaphor in the entirety of the English speaking world. Yes, some voodoo practitioners take the idea of someone or something's true name and the power it holds over them very seriously, but I really doubt that Jonas Salk or James Watson and Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins or really anybody on this list would consider medical science "voodoo." It requires a great deal more than simply knowing the name of a bacteria, virus, or syndrome to cure it and implying that it's as simple as that requires leaps of logic that even your most strident homeopath would struggle to complete. This first page is dizzying in it's defiance of common sense, logic, and reality, and we have not even begun to scratch the surface of the twisted insanity that is this essay.
Now, brace yourselves, because what I'm about to say may strike you as ludicrous, but I assure you, a man actually put it into print and then distributed it to stores throughout NY, NJ, and PA: the reason we have not won the war on terror is because we are not treating radical Muslims like a disease. Yeah. So, apparently, if we learned the "true name" of radical Islam and said it out loud three times, it would simply vanish, just like polio and Beetlejuice. You see, we eradicated polio and smallpox because we weren't afraid to profile them and call them by their "true names"; we did it because we're 'Murica and we know what's right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong. We (and nobody else in the world, not Europe or Asia or Africa, just 'Murica) stopped those diseases because we didn't worry about being racist or bigoted in destroying a disease, we went after it. Nevermind that scarlet fever and whooping cough aren't races or even people, we were not worried about being called racist for destroying them. Since he asked, no, Bob, for the record, we do not all agree with your version of history here. Some of us live in reality.
In Bob's reality, if we stop being so sensitive about the feelings of all those Muslims out there who aren't radicalized and don't want to destroy us and start profiling all Muslims and all dark skinned, swarthy people who might be Muslims, we can stop terrorism. Don't worry, it hurts my brain too, but Bob put it out there, so I'll give him credit for having the balls to be that stupid. Or crazy.
There's a lot of crazy in here, too, from some nonsense about his Irish grandmother getting on a plane with a seven year old to politicians who can't fight to bears and fish and birds and kids throwing ape "manure" at each other. From what I can piece out of this, he thinks that the Boston Marathon bombings have something to do with the fact that the President doesn't say "radical Muslims" enough, and that allows the "disease" of radical Islam to think it can attack us whenever it wants. He thinks that the town where the Tsarnaev brothers were radicalized is somewhere in Russia and should be bombed off the map. Well, Bob, I have some bad news for you: I don't know what Cambridge, MA ever did to you, but I'm sure they don't deserve that. That's right: the Tsarnaev's were not only living in the US for most of their lives, but found out about radical Islam here, too. They didn't go to Chechnya (it's Chechnya, not Russia, not Czechoslovakia, and definitely not China) to get radicalized, they found it on this newfangled thing all the kids are using called the World Wide Interwebs. Or did you think that in the 6 months the one brother spent in Russia that he went from good American boy who loved baseball and apple pie to murderous jihadi who magically convinced his brother to help him blow up America?
Then, in a classic Bob Beierle ADD moment, we're suddenly talking about Syria. Apparently, in whatever reality Bob inhabits, Bashar al-Assad is being funded by al Qaeda, and John McCain thinks we should have soldiers in Syria sorting out their civil war, which is first the correct answer but then the wrong one. He also seems to be mad because the President didn't immediately bomb the hell out of Syria as soon as it was reported that they used chemical weapons. Good thing he waited for confirmation there, huh Bob, especially since there's still no definitive evidence which side is using them or even that it actually happened.
The last bit of the article really just defines irony. Bob says we should let Syria tear itself apart, let millions of people be destroyed by a war they have no part in and want nothing to do with, all so that a group of radical Muslims (most of whom are not even involved in this struggle) who have "no tolerance or forgiveness for anyone else who doesn't believe what they believe" can destroy themselves. This was written with no trace of irony or sarcasm; Bob really does believe what he's writing here. You can't make this stuff up.
Just in case some of you still aren't following, the part of this whole thing that truly boggles my mind is that Bob seems to think that radical Islam is a disease and that our tolerance for it is the reason we haven't beaten it like other diseases. The problem with that mentality is that radical Islam is not a disease. It is a belief, and that is much more infectious and much more damaging than any disease known to man. We're not talking about bacteria or viruses here; this isn't a genetic abnormality that can be treated with chemicals or surgery. It's not even a parasite that can be removed or killed. These are people; human beings. Bob lumps them all together under one designation and says they all need to be terminated, indiscriminately, and with extreme prejudice. Why? Because they're the intolerant ones. Without any hint of irony or self awareness, he, in one paragraph, suggests that the United States should stand by and allow innocent women and children who are begging for our help to be killed in Syria because a group of militants with whom they have no affiliation other than sharing a similar (not even the same) belief system has killed innocent women and children in America. And he wonders why these people hate America. (On a side note, please don't think that I'm advocating American military intervention in Syria, I'm not, I think that would be a terrible idea. But we should be working to help those who are not combatants with protection, food, and medical aid.)
After spending around 1,600 words talking about how our politically correct culture of tolerance is the problem, how the disease of Islam is trying to destroy America, how our attempts to placate Muslims around the world and show them that we do not want to be their enemy only makes them think that we are weak and easy targets, he explains that we need to destroy this "disease" because they don't tolerate anyone who thinks differently.
Wow, Bob. Just wow.
First, I need to address that I've been gone a while. That's because Bob has been relatively quiet, either not publishing, or what he is publishing I haven't seen, so maybe I'm getting to people; or what he has published has been personal and really just not worth attacking. I'm truly sorry to hear about his wife, and his essay about her almost made me think he has a shred of humanity. And then I picked up his May 8, 2013 edition and saw What's In a Name? So much for that idea.
I honestly do not know where to start with this. Should I begin with the straight up insanity of how Bob thinks we fight disease? His complete and utter lack of understanding of modern medicine and what really happens when antibiotics are administered is just stupefying. The whole first page, where he talks about "finding the true name of a disease" is either the worst understanding of medical science in history or the most idiotic and painful metaphor in the entirety of the English speaking world. Yes, some voodoo practitioners take the idea of someone or something's true name and the power it holds over them very seriously, but I really doubt that Jonas Salk or James Watson and Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins or really anybody on this list would consider medical science "voodoo." It requires a great deal more than simply knowing the name of a bacteria, virus, or syndrome to cure it and implying that it's as simple as that requires leaps of logic that even your most strident homeopath would struggle to complete. This first page is dizzying in it's defiance of common sense, logic, and reality, and we have not even begun to scratch the surface of the twisted insanity that is this essay.
Now, brace yourselves, because what I'm about to say may strike you as ludicrous, but I assure you, a man actually put it into print and then distributed it to stores throughout NY, NJ, and PA: the reason we have not won the war on terror is because we are not treating radical Muslims like a disease. Yeah. So, apparently, if we learned the "true name" of radical Islam and said it out loud three times, it would simply vanish, just like polio and Beetlejuice. You see, we eradicated polio and smallpox because we weren't afraid to profile them and call them by their "true names"; we did it because we're 'Murica and we know what's right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong. We (and nobody else in the world, not Europe or Asia or Africa, just 'Murica) stopped those diseases because we didn't worry about being racist or bigoted in destroying a disease, we went after it. Nevermind that scarlet fever and whooping cough aren't races or even people, we were not worried about being called racist for destroying them. Since he asked, no, Bob, for the record, we do not all agree with your version of history here. Some of us live in reality.
In Bob's reality, if we stop being so sensitive about the feelings of all those Muslims out there who aren't radicalized and don't want to destroy us and start profiling all Muslims and all dark skinned, swarthy people who might be Muslims, we can stop terrorism. Don't worry, it hurts my brain too, but Bob put it out there, so I'll give him credit for having the balls to be that stupid. Or crazy.
There's a lot of crazy in here, too, from some nonsense about his Irish grandmother getting on a plane with a seven year old to politicians who can't fight to bears and fish and birds and kids throwing ape "manure" at each other. From what I can piece out of this, he thinks that the Boston Marathon bombings have something to do with the fact that the President doesn't say "radical Muslims" enough, and that allows the "disease" of radical Islam to think it can attack us whenever it wants. He thinks that the town where the Tsarnaev brothers were radicalized is somewhere in Russia and should be bombed off the map. Well, Bob, I have some bad news for you: I don't know what Cambridge, MA ever did to you, but I'm sure they don't deserve that. That's right: the Tsarnaev's were not only living in the US for most of their lives, but found out about radical Islam here, too. They didn't go to Chechnya (it's Chechnya, not Russia, not Czechoslovakia, and definitely not China) to get radicalized, they found it on this newfangled thing all the kids are using called the World Wide Interwebs. Or did you think that in the 6 months the one brother spent in Russia that he went from good American boy who loved baseball and apple pie to murderous jihadi who magically convinced his brother to help him blow up America?
Then, in a classic Bob Beierle ADD moment, we're suddenly talking about Syria. Apparently, in whatever reality Bob inhabits, Bashar al-Assad is being funded by al Qaeda, and John McCain thinks we should have soldiers in Syria sorting out their civil war, which is first the correct answer but then the wrong one. He also seems to be mad because the President didn't immediately bomb the hell out of Syria as soon as it was reported that they used chemical weapons. Good thing he waited for confirmation there, huh Bob, especially since there's still no definitive evidence which side is using them or even that it actually happened.
The last bit of the article really just defines irony. Bob says we should let Syria tear itself apart, let millions of people be destroyed by a war they have no part in and want nothing to do with, all so that a group of radical Muslims (most of whom are not even involved in this struggle) who have "no tolerance or forgiveness for anyone else who doesn't believe what they believe" can destroy themselves. This was written with no trace of irony or sarcasm; Bob really does believe what he's writing here. You can't make this stuff up.
Just in case some of you still aren't following, the part of this whole thing that truly boggles my mind is that Bob seems to think that radical Islam is a disease and that our tolerance for it is the reason we haven't beaten it like other diseases. The problem with that mentality is that radical Islam is not a disease. It is a belief, and that is much more infectious and much more damaging than any disease known to man. We're not talking about bacteria or viruses here; this isn't a genetic abnormality that can be treated with chemicals or surgery. It's not even a parasite that can be removed or killed. These are people; human beings. Bob lumps them all together under one designation and says they all need to be terminated, indiscriminately, and with extreme prejudice. Why? Because they're the intolerant ones. Without any hint of irony or self awareness, he, in one paragraph, suggests that the United States should stand by and allow innocent women and children who are begging for our help to be killed in Syria because a group of militants with whom they have no affiliation other than sharing a similar (not even the same) belief system has killed innocent women and children in America. And he wonders why these people hate America. (On a side note, please don't think that I'm advocating American military intervention in Syria, I'm not, I think that would be a terrible idea. But we should be working to help those who are not combatants with protection, food, and medical aid.)
After spending around 1,600 words talking about how our politically correct culture of tolerance is the problem, how the disease of Islam is trying to destroy America, how our attempts to placate Muslims around the world and show them that we do not want to be their enemy only makes them think that we are weak and easy targets, he explains that we need to destroy this "disease" because they don't tolerate anyone who thinks differently.
Wow, Bob. Just wow.
