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.)

Climate Change v. Santa Claus

Do people who are running for office or even the people who are already in office ever listen to what is actually coming out of their mouths? Or do they just really like the sound of their own voice? I'm getting a little tired of hearing asinine things from people and then having them explain it away by saying, "Oh, I misspoke" or something along those lines. If they would just say, "Well, that's because I'm an idiot", that's something I could get behind. The only thing that makes the idiocy even slightly tolerable is that it's A) usually amusing, and B) extremely mockable. I just wish it wasn't coming out of the mouths of folks who are supposed to be guiding this fine land of ours.

Today's case in point comes to us courtesy of the great state of West Virginia. Apparently, a one Rep. Nick Rahall, who is the incumbent Democratic for the U.S. House in the 3rd District, was asked "...six questions posed to him by members of The Register-Herald editorial board earlier this week." I don't know why only six. Why not ten? Then again, why ten? I don't know either. The point is that one of the questions was, inevitably, about climate change.

The question posed before him was "Will the EPA always have an adversarial relationship with West Virginia or is there room for compromise, and is climate change a real issue and what role does West Virginia play in the future of the environment?" OK, maybe that's why there were only six questions. I didn't realize that they were cramming more than one question into each inquiry. That's an awful lot to ask in one run-on sentence. Regardless, he did answer it. And what he said had me extremely confused.

The man replied, in part, "Climate change — to deny it exists, to just put your head in the sand and, ‘oh no, it doesn’t exist, what are you talking about,’ is about like standing on the floor of Macy’s during the month of December and claiming Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Come on, get real. There are responsible coal operators who work with us and continue to work with us, not only on climate change, but safety is another example.” Wait. What now?

He claims that to state that climate change does not exist is the same thing as claiming that Santa Claus doesn't exist? But...wait. I thought that....hmmm. Does he know something that I don't know? He does appear to be quite old. Maybe there's some sort of lore that I am unaware of? Lore that indicates that Santa Claus does exist?

Would it only be during the month of December that one could make that proclamation? I'm not sure how that plays into it. It's a charming thought, though. I'd really like it if someone did stand of the floor of the Macy's during December and claim that Santa Claus didn't exist and have that proclamation be met with a rousing round of shocked gasps from other yuletide shoppers. That would be amazing. But I'm kind of thinking it would barely get people to turn their heads. Me, it would only get to turn up my iPod so that I didn't have to be bothered by the ranting man who was spouting the obvious. Yeah, yeah. We know. Now are you going to buy that meat fork that is also a meat thermometer or can I buy it?

Now, I'm sure that if you asked this guy about this, he would simply say that he misspoke. And I'm going to pray that he did misspeak. But should this be something that you're misspeaking about? It seems a little strange that you'd take complete fiction and throw it into your argument to make a point about what is factual. Hopefully, in the future, he'll shy away from any sort of Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny references. Then again, if he doesn't and he refers to them in the same way that he did Santa Claus, then we've got a story on our hands! And it'll be goooooood!

Slightly Psychotic Stump Speech

I realize that when you want to be nominated to run for a public office that you sort of have to make yourself stand out in certain ways. Try and make it a way that's not crazy. Take this Phil Davison fellow for a moment, won't you? He wanted to be nominated to be the Republican candidate for the Stark County Treasurer in Stark County (surprise), Ohio. Below is his stump speech that he gave. And, um...well...it's hard to know where to go from here. Actually, I might not have to go anywhere. He might just take it home for us by himself. Let's see.

+

Hmm. Yeah. Are we sure that this was Stark County and not Stark Raving Mad County? Seriously, there's not much more I can do with that. He pretty much did my work for me. I do believe that he confused "passion" with "psychosis" and "needing medication". I like it when he says "We're tired of business as usual!" He's far from usual, I'll give him that! Who was his adviser? Mel Gibson? Good Lord, sir. How does he keep that up for a full six minutes without having a stroke? He's pacing around like a lion in a cage with this crazed look in his glazed over eyes. Wow, wow, wow.

You know who he sounds just like? Chris Farley in the SNL skit where he is a motivational speaker and loudly states, "First off...I am 34-years old....I am divorced....And I live in a van...down by the river!" If you're unfamiliar, good luck at finding the video anywhere online other than at NBC because they are rather protective about having any of their stuff out there where they don't have control over it. If you're just interested in just the audio of the late, great Chris Farley doing his motivational speaker gig (you know, for comparative purposes), it can be found here. So, tell your friends, tell your neighbors and tell Randy Gonzalez.

By the way, I'm sure you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that he did not receive the nomination that he was looking for. Go figure.

Mayoral Sanctioned Squandering

Many, many idiotic notions have been gaining steam lately. There is just a large segment of society that has embraced the asinine and gone with it. One of the more notable segments would be all of the lawmakers in various cities around the country who have voted to boycott Arizona because of their implementation of an immigration enforcement law that almost exactly mirrors federal law (but differs because it isn't as strict as federal law). Morons.

Now, listen...the last time that I checked, the majority of individual cities and states across this great nation of ours have enough problems of their own. They really don't need to be spending a lot of time worrying about what other states and cities are doing. They certainly don't need to be wasting both time and money on what other states are doing. So why in the world the Sacramento City Council was wasting their time and money on deciding whether or not to boycott Arizona (in opposition of their perfectly legal immigration enforcement law) is completely beyond me. That is, it was completely beyond me until I heard Mayor Kevin Johnson explain the rationale behind the asshattery that seems to be going on.

I realize that I should be providing a link for the quote below. But I can't find it. I had to transcribe it from the Hour 4 segment of the Armstrong & Getty Show podcast from yesterday (somewhere right around the 20:00 mark). Usually they have links to these sort of things, but yesterday they didn't. It's there, though. I swear it's there. I wouldn't mislead you. Much. But today, not at all. Here is what the mayor of Sacramento had to say about the allegations that passing such sanctions against Arizona is squandering and wasting taxpayer dollars. I hope you're sitting down.

"I would say that for those of us who believe that we squandered and wasted taxpayer dollars, um, I believe a threat, um, you know, an unjust law anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. But we squander taxpayer dollars at a lot of council meetings by wasting time on issues that are city issues. So I'd like to see us be much more efficient on the way we conduct ourselves. Not just on non-city issues, but certainly within the city of Sacramento." Wuck?!

That's right. Don't worry about the taxpayer dollars that were squandered just on the Arizona immigration law boycott because they squander taxpayer dollars all the freaking time! No worries! It happens all the time! They are completely inefficient at making the best use of taxpayer dollars! This is nothing new! Don't get yourself all in a wad over this! No big deal. It's a very every day occurrence. ::: sigh ::: I want to stab myself.

Does he realize that he admitted that the Arizona boycott was a "non-city issue"? That it is an issue that doesn't have anything to do with the city? Thus, the city shouldn't be doing anything about the issue, let alone squandering taxpayer dollars?! When I can finally locate the clip so that I can link to it, you'll have to hear how he laughs when he makes that statement. He thinks it's pretty funny that they're all a bunch of inefficient losers. Nice. Just what Sacramento needs leading it into doom. A funny man mayor. Great. Let's see how this whole boycott thing works out for you, Sacramento. Actually, with a mayor with that sort of attitude, let's just see how everything else works out for you. Enjoy your squandering!

Can YOU Use An ATM?

I know politicians are out of touch. You know politicians are out of touch. You know who the only ones who don't know that politicians are out of touch? Politicians. That is correct.



Take a one Senator Ben Nelson. He is a Senator from Nebraska. Now, in an article that appeared over there in the Omaha World-Herald (I don't know why there is that hyphen between World and Herald. Can't it be both? And if it can't, why aren't they able to just choose one?), Senator Nelson was "...asked this week whether Congress should cap ATM fees". That almost seems like a reasonable question. But in order for it to be completely reasonable, you have to believe that the government should be meddling in private business. Now, I'm all for reasonable fees. (Actually, I'm all for NO fees. It's a freaking ATM. Transferring money around costs the banks pennies. If they're going to charge me three bucks, I'm going to find another ATM. It's pretty simple. Can't the free market and/or supply and demand take care of this on its own? Do we really need to have Congress telling us what to do all of the time? Sweet Mother of God, I hope not.) So, technically, it was a reasonable question.

What wasn't reasonable was Senator Nelson's response. He said, “I've never used an ATM, so I don't know what the fees are,” Nelson said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. “It's true, I don't know how to use one." Um, what now? You don't know how to....? An ATM?? Really? Good Lord, man....

Now, I don't know if he realized that his response wasn't exactly the most down to earth thing that anyone has ever heard or what, but he decided to do the most inadvisable thing that anyone could do in this situation. He tried to make it sound better. And you know how that tends to end. That's right. By making it worse.

He then said, "But I could learn how to do it just like I've . . . I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.” Oh. My. God. What I want to know is when he learned to "swipe". I also really want to know what he knows about "the holograms" and how he knows it. If I had to guess, I'd probably go with his knowledge being limited to "Ooohh! Shiny!" Turns out, it was worse than that. The article tells us "By “holograms,” Nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as Lowe's and Menard's." Wait. HE clarified "holograms" to mean "bar codes"? Where has this man been living since the mid-1970s? Under a rock? Under a holographic rock, was he?And it keeps getting worse!

No, I swear! In an effort to not make himself sound like a complete, out of touch tool, he added, "I go and get my own seating assignment on an airplane...I mean, I'm not without some skills. I just haven't had the need to use an ATM.” ::: sigh :::

Wow. He gets his own seating assignment on an airplane. Yes, he clearly has skills! You might notice that he didn't say he books his own airline flights. He just knows how to go to the airport, stand in line and tell someone his name when he gets to the counter. I'm not so sure that I would call standing a "skill".

Look, how old is this guy? Hmm...it appears he was born in 1941. So he's 69. OK, I get the feeling comfortable with going into the bank to get your cash. My Mom is 78 and my uncle is 80 and they both do that. But they both also know how to use an ATM! They both also know the difference between a freaking bar code and a hologram! And finally, neither one of them would add swiping a card to pay for gas or groceries as one of their "skills".

Let Me Point Something Out

This whole ordeal with the Christmas Crotchfire Bomber is really starting to bug me. Aside from the fact that it seems as if no one is going to lose their job, the rhetoric that President Barry is throwing around is laughable. He says that he doesn't want any finger pointing, but yet that he wants people to be held accountable. I don't know how you're going to be able to hold someone accountable if you don't at least point a little bit in their direction. A point. A head nod. Maybe you shuffle one of your feet in their direction like you're Mr. Ed with some sort of nervous twitch or something. I don't know. But I do know that you're going to have to single out who or what it was that failed the system that was in place and you're not going to be able to do that without a little pointing of one form or another.

But President Barry is adamant that there will be no finger pointing. Um, yeah, good luck with that. First of all, from what I can tell, President Barry does plenty of finger pointing himself. Here's the President and his finger now! Oh! And what are they doing?! That's right! Pointing! Behold!

And look, here he is pointing again!

And again!

And again!

He's even got his wife doing it (sort of)!

Man, for someone who doesn't want there to be any finger pointing, he sure is coming off looking like the guy who invented it or something. And it's not just him. I didn't realize how much finger pointing there was in politics until I started looking around after hearing the "no finger pointing" rule that has apparently been implemented whenever there is a such a major screw up that there shouldn't be anything other than finger pointing. Let me just tell you this: There are a lot of fingers being pointed all over Washington, DC. As you saw above, President Barry? Quite a prolific finger pointer. His Vice President? Ol' What's His Name? Jim? John? Joe! (Dammit! I'm going to get that on the first try one of these days! Joe!) He points! Behold!

Nancy Pelosi, third in line for the Presidency of the United States if something extremely tragic happens (mostly tragic because something would have happened to the first two guys and not to her, as I see her as desirably expendable). A pointer!

What about Hillary Clinton? A pointer? I think so! Behold!

And if Hill's a pointer, what about Bill? I think he might be! Let's find out!

Oh. Unfortunate. Got anything else? Anything post the Lewinsky era?

Oh. Yeah, that does seem post that whole affair-while-in-office incident. Still not quite was I was looking for (but I'm guessing he sported that pose a lot). One more try.

All right! All right! That's enough. Look, he points, all right?! My point is he points! Bill Clinton points! For cryin' out loud....

We've got other folks that made it closer to the White House than Hillary did that are pointers. Old Man McCain. He points!

Well, he tries to point. The point is that he's trying! And his running mate, the former barely half term Governor of Alaska, Mrs. Sarah Palin. She points.

God bless Tina Fey. That Russia joke just never gets old, does it?

There's pointing (sort of) from President Barry's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, a notorious pointer.

Barney Frank, that Senator from Massachusetts who looks and talks like a cartoon dog. (What kind of a dog? Probably a pointer, yes, that would be funny.)

Even ol' G.W. was known to point from time to time.

The point is (pun probably intended, but I'm not proud of it or anything) that for a guy (President Barry) who doesn't want to do any finger pointing, there sure is an awful lot of it going on. Maybe it's because they're all just pointing the fingers at themselves that he's not very fond of it. Whatever the reason, please get over it and please start firing people. And President Barry, if you need me to get in touch with a reasonable substitute for Mr. Ed that can lift a hoof in the general direction of who needs to be fired, let me know. Just point in my direction and I'll get right on that.