Could You Please Keep It Down?

I don't like it any more than anyone else does when people make noise in a movie theater. What is wrong with those people? Why is it so hard for them to be quiet when they're in a big room filled with a bunch of other people being quiet? I mean, being quiet is pretty easy. You just sit there and don't talk and you've done it! You're quiet! It's the making noise that takes some effort. Granted, not a lot of effort, especially if everyone else is being quiet, but some effort. So, why not just be quiet? And if someone does ask you to be quiet, just do it. Simply stop the offending behavior and watch the movie. Please, whatever you do, do not resolve the issue by shooting and killing the person who was offended. That's really not going to help much.

According to our friends across the pond at The Guardian, a couple of folks at a cinema in Latvia had an encounter after one of the patrons was accused of eating his popcorn too loudly. I am not quite sure how that's possible. Popcorn isn't exactly the loudest of all of the concessions offered. Then again, some people are just pure ruffians when it comes to eating. They'd be much better off just snapping on a feed bag. Might even be quieter. Who knows?

Apparently, "The assailant, 27, reportedly had a brief argument with the man, aged 43, who was sitting next to him during a screening of Black Swan". Two guys, at the movies, watching Black Swan? Were their wives or girlfriends with them? I'm just saying. If they were each there alone, then maybe it was an unwelcomed advance gone horribly awry. Stranger things have happened. Like what happened next, for instance.

It seems that the 27-year old didn't take too kindly to the 43-year old telling him to keep his popcorn chomping down. So when the movie was over, the 27-year old pulled out a "legally registered firearm" and shot the 43-year old dead as can be. After that, he just stood around and waited to be arrested (which he was). I find it amusing that he waited until the end of the movie. It's like he was thinking, "I am going to kill that guy, but first? I need to know what's up with these little ballerinas." Very strange. Not as strange as killing the guy, but strange none the less. Note to self: Don't go to the movies in Latvia.

Don't Target Target

So, get this: I'm talking to my mom today. Yes, that is quite the accomplishment, but it's really not the point. She had lunch with a friend of hers who is in town visiting from somewhere around the Boston area. My mom tells me that during their lunch conversation, the subject of the Arizona shooting came up. Since I'm pretty much on overload with that whole story, I almost tuned her out right then, but I didn't. I'm not quite sure if that was a good idea or not.

She proceeds to tell me that this woman was telling her that there is a lot of talk on the East coast by folks who want Target to change its name. That's right. Target. Because why? Because it has the name 'Target' and it has a bullseye and it might incite violence.

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you dry shaving me?! I didn't even know what to say for a second, I was so completely stunned and disgusted at the same time. Are we that weak of a nation that people really think that a retail chain named 'Target' is going to cause violence? Please tell me we're not. Why aren't you telling me? Speak. SPEAK! Oh, God. Wait. It's true, isn't it? For cryin' out loud...

I asked my mom if this friend of hers was in favor of that sort of insanity and she said that she claimed that she wasn't. I would certainly hope not. I mean, people are free to think what they want (despite most of my objections), but if my mom was friends with someone whose dome was so incredibly soft that she thought that the name Target would incite violence, I'd really have to consider my relationship with her. Either that or start looking into suitable homes for her. At least under this pretense, I'd have a reason.

I swear to you, if there is ever a shooting at a Target store, I'm going to turn off all media, possibly forever. I don't think that I could take listening to people debate whether or not the name was at fault. I think that would absolutely be the straw that drove me over the edge when I didn't want to drink. Or something like that.

This Might Explain The Applause

So, we all know that the "memorial" service for the victims of the shootings down there in Arizona was a bit weird. That is, if you consider a pep-rally-esque atmosphere "weird". If you think it's perfectly normal to yell and scream and print up T-shirts and bring signage to a memorial service, then you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. But considering that you're reading this blog, you most likely do not think that is normal and think that those who behaved in such a fashion are tools to the nth degree. Do you think that whole deal could get any worse? If you didn't, you might want to sit down because it kind of did.

My utmost thanks must go to Ima Wurdibitsch of The Wordy Bitch. (I highly suggest that you check out her blog. She's hilarious. I would like to have a beer with her. I would like to have several beers with her. She's that entertaining. But now I sound like a stalker. Hmm. Oh, well. Nothing new.) For it is Ima who informed me of a possible reason why there was so much cheering and carrying on at the memorial service. She directed me to a post over at something called Gateway Pundit. It is there where Robert Gibbs was quoted as saying, "I will say that I read the speech several times and thought that there wouldn’t be a lot of applause if any. I think many of us thought that. But I think there was a celebration, again, of the lives of those who had been impacted. Not just at that grocery store but throughout the country. And I think that, if that is part of the healing process, then that’s a good thing."

Before I continue, just let me say how idiotic that statement sounds. Were any of the family members of those who were killed "celebrating" that day? I'm just going to guess that they were not. I saw pictures of them from throughout the ceremony and they did not look happy. They certainly didn't look like the softheads in the stands who acted like the University of Arizona just won the Rose Bowl or something. And I don't know what part of Robert Gibbs's "healing process" involves shouting and yelling and screaming and clapping, but I don't think I agree with him that it is "a good thing". It's a disrespectful thing. It's an inappropriate thing. It's a lot of things, but I don't think that I would say that good is one of them.

Back to Gateway Pundit. After the quote from Gibbs, they write: "Oh really?Then why was it printed on the Jumbotron?" Wait. What now? Behold!

Good Lord. What in the world is wrong with people? Were they really asking for applause there? It certainly looks like they were. Now, I suppose that it could have been a closed-captioning thing for the hearing impaired. I suppose. (Granted, I'm not sure that would have been necessary, as anyone in that building, hearing impaired or not, would have known that the place was going bat-S.) But it really looks like they were asking for applause. I have no idea which one it was, but given as how President Barry did not ONCE ask for people to be respectful and pipe down, it would seem to be a logical jump that it was being asked for.

Whatever the reason, it doesn't look good no matter how you look at it. It doesn't look good if they asked for applause. And it also doesn't look good that they didn't tell people to stop applauding. (It also didn't look good that they handed out T-shirts with a freaking slogan on them. Not to mention that it was a slogan that had nothing to do with remembrance, healing or memorializing. Nothing. Who hands out T-shirts at a memorial for dead people?) President Barry's crew needs to step it up a bit in whatever way that they should have. It never should have happened the way that it did.

The Memorial Debacle

Yesterday, there was a pep rally memorial service for the victims of the shooting down in Arizona. I've gotta say that I have never seen a memorial service quite like that one. And I think I'm glad that's the case. It was, um, odd from the get go. I didn't think that you would need to remind people at a memorial service that they were there because people had died, but that might not have been such a bad idea yesterday. Seriously, who are you people?

I should have known something was not quite right when I saw the picture below that my friend Scott had posted on his Facebook page. Let's take a look.

Now, Scott didn't caption this or anything, so I was left to my own devices (which are few and far between these days) to figure out what in the world was going on. It appeared that they were getting ready for some sort of a sporting event by putting a T-shirt on each and every chair in the arena. Nope, turns out that they were getting ready for the memorial by putting a T-shirt on each and every chair in the arena. Because nothing says "We're in mourning" like a new shirt to commemorate the event. I knew that group T-shirts were popular for large family reunions, but here's to hoping that they never catch on for memorial services.

The place was packed. I mean packed. And while that surprised me, what surprised me even more was the number of cell phone cameras and regular cameras that people kept holding up to take pictures. It was beyond odd. I've been to a fair number of memorial services and I've definitely been to more than my share of funerals (it's what happens when you grow up in a family full of oldsters) and while I don't remember them all, I am fairly confident in saying that there was NO photography going on at any of them. NONE. I am also fairly confident in saying that if someone had tried to take pictures at either sort of service, one of the family members of the deceased would have either knocked the camera out of the moron's hand or just simply attacked the moron. There's no guarantee that it wouldn't have been both, but there is a guarantee that it would have been one of those.

Who does that? I don't care who you are or what the circumstance is, who does that? Who takes pictures at a memorial? I don't think that I'm alone in thinking that it is incredibly disrespectful, but if I had been in attendance, I obviously would have been in the vast minority that thought so. But if you think that taking pictures at a memorial was bad, allow me to show you that some folks thought that it was perfectly fine to bring signs to the memorial. Behold!

And then there was President Barry. I'm not blaming him for any of what went on when he was talking. He looked very uncomfortable when he walked out to speak at the memorial for several deceased individuals including a 9-year old little girl as the place went completely bonkers. People were clapping and cheering and taking pictures and hollering. It was the weirdest thing that I think I have seen in a long time. It wasn't a sporting event, you dimwits! It was a memorial! Who gives a fat rat's ass if it's President Barry coming out to speak? You don't clap and cheer! What part of that don't you understand?! He wasn't campaigning! You people were supposed to be mourning! You people were supposed to be in need of healing! You people were supposed to be aware of the circumstances that brought you to the place where the President would be speaking to you! And yet in spite of all of the things that you were supposed to be aware of, y'all still acted like a bunch of idiots. It was disgraceful is what it was.

And while I don't think that it was President Barry's "fault", I am a little bit surprised that he didn't at least frigging say something to address the inappropriate behavior by most of the crowd. I don't think that it would have been out of line at all for him to have said something to the effect of "Thank you, but let's remember that we're here to pay our respects to those who lost their lives the other day and I think it would be better if all applause was held during this ceremony for mourning." And I can't imagine why he wouldn't have said something. He did look uncomfortable, I'll give him that. But I guess that maybe it stroked his ego more than it make him feel kind of oogey.

I put a lot of thought into how I felt about this whole ordeal. At first, I was conflicted in the sense that there are some people who do not want their funeral or their wake or their memorial or whatever it is to be a somber occasion. Had that been the case in this instance, I suppose that all of the cheering (no matter how odd it may have seemed) would not have come across as reprehensible. But that wasn't the case. The people who were there who lost their family members were distraught. I don't know that I would have been able to contain myself if I had been one of them when the cheers erupted from the stands. I think I would have had to leave because I would have felt that those who were cheering were not there for the same reason that I was there and that I was clearly outnumbered. And I don't think that I would have been able to stomach being in a room with a bunch of softheads trying to get a good picture of President Barry on their cell phones while I was still completely devastated at the loss of my loved one.

I wish I could explain what in the world went on in there, but I can't. I'd really like to be able to ask those that were cheering what in the world they were cheering for and why on earth they felt it appropriate to do so in the given venue. Since it seemed to be a sporting event-like atmosphere that most of those in attendance wanted it to be like, maybe they shouldn't have put a T-shirt over every chair and instead put them inside one of the T-shirt cannons that they use at NBA games and give everyone their shirt that way. Then they could have a big wildcat mascot or something come out and do a little dance. And don't forget to send out a bunch of concessions vendors so that folks don't get hungry or parched during a memorial service. Good Lord, people. Seriously, what in the world is wrong with you? Throughout this entire ordeal it has seemed as if people's perspectives have been completely skewed. And sadly, the memorial debacle was no exception.

Focus, people! FO-CUS! For cryin' out loud...

This Is Why He Did It

I think people can finally stop trying to "figure out" what made Jared Lee Loughner shoot all of those people down in Arizona the other day. People can stop wondering if it was the right or the left or the Tea Party or (in the most ridiculous of all wonderings) Sarah freaking Palin. People can stop wondering if it was talk radio or cable news or the Internet. Yes, people can stop wondering all of those things. You know why? Because today his mug shot was released. Ready? Behold!

There you go. That is the face of a crazy person. That is a person with a severe mental illness (most likely schizophrenia). You want to know why he did what he did? It's because he's crazy. You know why that might not make sense to you? Because it's crazy, that is correct. There isn't some deep seeded explanation behind all of this. I think it was Dick Armey who said in regards to this particular instance, something to the effect of "We have to make sure that we call in the right department on this one. We don't need the political science department or the sociology department. We need the psychology department." He's exactly right. (And if he didn't say it, whoever did is exactly right.) That is the face of a crazy man. And there's never anything that anyone can do to protect themselves from the unpredictable actions of the crazy. It's sad, but it's true.

There are some things that just won't ever make sense. This is likely one of them unless you can accept the fact (and a lot of people can't) that the man is crazy and not look for anything other than that. I don't know why so many people are unsatisfied with someone being crazy as a rationale for their actions. It makes perfect sense to me. It also makes things a lot easier. I hate looking for answers that aren't there. It's pointless, because why? Because they aren't there, that is correct.

It's Not Her Fault

While people are still running around trying to "figure out" what caused the loser who went on a shooting rampage in Arizona to go on said rampage, I'm going to mention something to you that I really didn't think would ever come up in the conversation. I mean really. In fact, when I heard this particular aspect voiced, I was actually stunned. I was actually surprised at how dense some people actually are. Me. Surprised. At the stupidity of people! I know! It seems unimaginable! But yet, it happened.

It's pretty simple and I'm just going to put it out there the way that I read it. Over at ABC News, it actually says "Facebook executive Randi Zuckerberg bluntly asked, "Is Sarah Palin to blame?"

::: blink :::

::: blink :::

::: blink :::

::: blink :::

Um, what now? Sarah Palin? To blame? For shooting? She didn't shoot anyone! How is this Sarah Palin's fault? This Randi Zuckerberg needs a helmet. One of those industrial strength ones that I was talking about yesterday. Sarah Palin? Are you dry shaving me?! For cryin' out loud, what is wrong with you?!

I don't know what this whole Sarah Palin phenomenon is, but it needs to be studied by someone more capable than me. (Yes, I know. It's a tall order to fill. Moving on!) Let me say this in very simple terms. Sarah Palin is not responsible for the shootings in Arizona. Sarah Palin is not responsible for a lot of things. I am tired of hearing about Sarah Palin. I don't understand why she is either so beloved or so hated by so many. I really don't understand why she won't go away! She was barely a governor for half a term and an unsuccessful Vice Presidential candidate. Why does that give her so much attention after the fact?! Please. Let her go away. Fine, if her kid wants to dance in some TV dancing contest, that's one thing. But please let her go away.

Wow. If you hear about this sort of violent act taking place and your first thought is that it is somehow Sarah Palin's fault, there is something wrong with your thinking. There's also probably something wrong with you, but that's a whole different story. Also, if you are the sort of person that thinks that Sarah Palin is to blame for things like this (or for anything, really) please, for the love of God, please do not vote. Ever. (And don't "Rock the Vote", either. That was a bad idea from the get go.) Please just go about your daily business. You can even go about your daily business and continue to blame Sarah Palin for everything. That's fine. But for the love of God, please do not vote. Ever. And make sure you get a snug fitting helmet. You're going to need it.

The Media Still Sucks

Today, some asshat decided to get all shooty down there in Arizona and shoot a bunch of people, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Federal Judge John Moll and a 9-year old child. The suspect, a one 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner, is now in custody. I have already heard my share of comments to the effect of "We don't yet know what motivated the shooter". I really don't like it when statements like that are thrown into the mix of reporting for various reasons. One, I'm not really sure, at the point, that it matters what may have "motivated" someone to go to a public event and start shooting people. And two, the most obvious and likely answer to the question of "Why?" is that there is obviously some sort of mental illness afoot. You can't tell me that, whether previously identified or not, whether previously treated or not, that someone who goes to a public event and shoots a bunch of people doesn't have just a touch of mental illness going on. And even if you think that this might be the exception to the rule (which, by the way, would make you such a softhead that I think that you should stop reading this right now and go buy yourself and industrial strength helmet for your soft, soft dome), what say you check out Shooty McShooterson's YouTube page and get back to me with your assessment of his mental stability.

Naturally, the media is practically soiling themselves over all of this news that they suddenly have to cover. It's just unfortunate that they suck so badly at it. And while they don't see the consequences of their suckage at non-critical moments in news coverage, there are quite obvious consequences to their suckage at critical moments in breaking news coverage. I am specifically calling out CNN, Reuters and NPR. I am vaguely calling out all of the others who participated in the same irresponsible acts that CNN, Reuters and NPR did. All of these news stations, with their rush to be the "first" to report, had reported that Rep. Giffords had died. She, in fact, has not died. She, in fact, was shot in the head (yes, I realize that isn't good, but if she's still alive, you can't say that she's dead) and made it through surgery and is in critical condition. That's not dead. (Her neurosurgeon said that he is "optimistic" that she will recover. I don't know what that means, but I do know that it means she still isn't dead.)

What is wrong with you, CNN, Reuters, NPR and others?! You are supposed to be news outlets. You're supposed to report the news, you jackwagons. What does that say about you when you report utter crap that just isn't true? It says that you suck at your job and, while I don't often call for people to lose their jobs, whoever it was that gave the go-ahead to say that someone was dead when she wasn't should lose their job, as they are obviously completely incompetent and incapable of performing at the level needed when the pressure is on. Do you know how many people, including those who know Rep. Giffords, could have been watching any of your crap news sources and heard that she had died? Of course you do! That's why you reported it! Can you imagine the grief that was caused by your irresponsible actions, probably due to wanting to get the story out there first? Of course you don't! That's why you reported it! At the risk of sounding like someone's grandmother, you really should be ashamed of yourselves.

You know what all of this means, don't you? I fear it means that the days of public access to those who represent the people who should be able to have access them are gone. Because if there are two things that the government does well, they are nothing and overreact. I fear the end of those town hall meetings that had gathered so much steam six months ago. I fear the end of any sort of elected official ever poking their head out in public again. (I also fear an overabundance of crappy news reporting on this story over the next few days, but that's a little off the point I was trying to make here.) Way to go, assclown.

In conclusion, The New York Post (while getting their facts straight in not incorrectly reporting that anyone had died, still can't manage to get the name of Gabrielle Giffords father correct, even though they have the SAME last name. Seriously, who edits stuff anymore? Anyone? How can you get his name WRONG? It's the freaking SAME!) reported that "The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies. "Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole Tea Party." OK, now I'm going to give the man a pass on that comment, as his daughter had just been shot in the head. I have nothing bad to say about that man and his statement at all. But I would like to point out that the Tea Party doesn't want to shoot Congresswomen in the head. The Tea Party does not want to shoot and kill Federal judges, nor does the Tea Party want to shoot and kill small children. The Tea Party merely wants less spending and lower taxes. See? No shooting involved at all in that statement. This isn't a Tea Party thing. This is a whack-a-do thing. Please remember that. Please encourage others to remember that. One crazy person does not necessarily define an entire organization. (Oh, and President Barry isn't a Muslim, either. I figured I'd just throw that one in there again. As long I'm encouraging people to speak the truth, it can't hurt to remind folks of that just one more time.)

I pray for all of the victims and all of their families to find the strength and the courage to make it through this. (See? I don't have to mock everything.)