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.

moreless

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.

moreless

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...

moreless

They Didn't Ask For Signs

I think I love Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Seriously. This video rules. Way to call out the Federal Government! Nice.

moreless

I Think I Love Jon Kyl

It was only a matter of time before it became apparent how ridiculous and clueless those on city councils and boards of supervisors are as they debate whether or not to impose some sort of idiotic boycott against Arizona for passing their illegal immigration enforcement bill. The only ones who seem to think that these boycotts are a good idea seem to be the members of the councils and the boards which are considering such lunacy. It's like they haven't read the bill at all. And in some cases, it's almost like they don't even know where Arizona is, either.

Let's go over to Milwaukee, Wisconsin and get to know Milwaukee County Supervisor Peggy West. Ms. West supports a boycott of doing business with Arizona. If only we knew what her logic for such support really was. Oh, wait! We DO!

Below, you'll find a video segment from last Thursday's meeting where Ms. West explains why she is in favor of boycotting Arizona. Here's the textual version of her reasoning (the video is so that you'll actually believe me when you read what she said, as it is almost unbelievable):

"If this was Texas...which is a state on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with, you know, with undocumented people, flooding their borders, I would say, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border and, um, it doesn't make sense to me that when you Google this subject, if you put in "Arizona SB 1070" that you see a picture of the Governor of Arizona meeting with President Obama in May of 2010. If you have direct linkage to the President, there are already National Guard troops on the border in Arizona." Wait. It's removed from....the border....with MEXICO?!?! But it's...but....she just....oh, never mind. Roll the clip....

Yep. See, if Arizona was a border state, then she'd understand what all of the hubbub was about. But since it's so NOT a border state, she doesn't get it. (And I don't get why that would matter. I guess in her mind, illegal immigrants only stay in border states? I really don't know.) And all of that stuff about Googling the law and seeing pictures of President Barry and the governor of Arizona? I don't know what that has to do with anything at all. I thought I was confused at her questionable geography skills, but that really threw me for a loop. (And by the way, I did Google "Arizona SB 1070" and my results showed NO pictures of President Barry and the governor of Arizona. In fact, the first image result that turned up for me was that fetching young lady in the lingerie right there. She is neither the governor of Arizona, NOR the President of the United States, so that's a little odd.)

But wait! It gets better! According to something called the Phoenix New Times, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl sent Ms. West a letter AND a MAP of the United States which highlighted that Arizona does, in fact, share a border with Mexico. The text of his letter to her is awesome. It reads in part: "You will be interested to learn that Arizona does indeed share a border with Mexico. I have enclosed a map for your convenience." Do we have the map, fellas? We do? Super. Behold!

Awesome. Completely awesome. And he follows up his awesomeness with even more awesomeness when he closes out his letter with: "I hope you will take the time to actually read the Arizona law before formulating an opinion about it and become familiar with our country's geography and the challenges that our border states face." Yeah. I think I'm a little in love with Jon Kyl.

Ms. West pretty much sums up what I've been thinking about all of these political windbags who are advocating and enacting boycotts against Arizona all along. They all seem to be a bunch of dimwits that wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. And while I don't know anything about Jon Kyl, I know that anyone who sends that sort of letter to someone who deserves to receive it gets a few points in my book. (I'm really hoping that the guy isn't a total prick, because I'd really like to like him.)

moreless

Nebraska - The Next Arizona

As is the case with most days, I am confused. I'm confused because of a little town called Fremont, Nebraska. There aren't a lot of people in Fremont (and that's probably for good reason). Maybe around 26,000 is all. But when they went to the polls on Monday, at least 57% of the voters voted yes on a measure to help control illegal immigration. Hmm. That sounds vaguely familiar...

According to something called WOWT (which appears to be some sort of NBC affiliate), the measure does a couple of things. Thing One: "Before landlords can rent any home to a person in Fremont, that person must show a certificate obtained from the city. In order to get the certificate the person will have to prove they are in the United States legally." Ahhh. I like it. And I like Thing Two as well, which is that "The ordinance also requires Fremont employers to verify the legal residency status of people they hire." Sweet!

Way to go Fremont, Nebraska! You certainly are a plucky little town! What was the driving force behind such legislation? You liked won't be shocked to learn that "Supporters said they wanted the city to act because the Federal Government has failed to enforce immigration laws and because it has failed to secure the nation's borders." Hmmm. That sounds vaguely familiar as well...

In case you're missing the obvious correlation here, the Fremont, Nebraska law sounds surprisingly like what they're doing in Arizona. It's just making sure that there is some sort of verification of a person's legal residence in this country. And just like the rationale behind the Arizona law, Fremont, Nebraska is fed up with the Federal Government doing absolutely nothing to enforce immigration laws and secure our borders. And just like in Arizona, these things are FAR from crazy notions. However, what makes the Fremont, Nebraska law stand out from the Arizona law is that the Fremont, Nebraska law was voted on by the people.

That is the part that people who are against the Arizona law need to really pay attention to. So far, they've done a really good job of trying to ignore that, according to polling, 60% of the country and 70% of people in Arizona are all for these sorts of laws. And they could kind of trick themselves into thinking that those numbers didn't hold any weight because the Arizona law wasn't put to the voters. But the Fremont, Nebraska law was put to the voters. And the results were surprisingly close to what the poll numbers showed about the Arizona law; about 60% were in favor of it.

That brings me to my confusion. Why was there all of the hooplah and uproar over the Arizona law, but there isn't that same kind of outcry over the Fremont, Nebraska law? How come I haven't heard of people wanting to boycott Fremont? (Granted, there probably isn't much there to boycott in the first place, but I'm operating on the principle of thing here, so stay with me!) How come there aren't city council meetings far and away where they discuss boycotting Fremont, Nebraska? How come I haven't heard all of the cries of racism over Fremont, Nebraska? Is it because their law only requires some sort of documentation if someone wants something (ie, a place to rent), whereas the Arizona law allows for a general suspicion of someone being in this country illegally to warrant a request to see identity documents? I don't know. I don't get it.

If I had to guess, however, I would guess that it was because the law was enacted through a vote. It's hard to argue with what the voters want. Just look at South Carolina and ol' Alvin Greene, the Democratic Party's candidate for the Senate. The voters voted for him and he appears to be dumb as a post. That's apparently what they wanted (though it's extremely unclear as to why). Fremont, Nebraska passing this law simply reflects what the national polls do, and that is that people are frustrated with the federal government not doing anything to curb illegal immigration and so they're willing to vote on measures that will allow individual states to try and save themselves. And perhaps one of the best things that it can accomplish is maybe all of those people who continually complain about the Arizona law will start to pipe down. I'm all for any law that silences morons.

moreless

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!

moreless

Just Read The Law

Ready for this? You're not. Trust me. You know that awesome law they passed down there in Arizona? The one that, essentially, mirrors the federal laws on immigration enforcement almost exactly? Yeah, that's the one. The one in which, according to the Wall Street Journal, 70% of Arizonans favor, 60% of Americans favor, and 50% of Hispanics favor. That's the one. (Man, you sure wouldn't get the idea that those are the numbers in favor of it when all you hear about are people protesting it and boycotting Arizona...as if they are representing the majority, which they are clearly not.) That's the law I'm talking about.

Now, when this law passed, the Attorney General of the United States, a one mustachioed Eric Holder, was critical of the law and said that the federal government may challenge it because " Arizona's new law is subject to potential abuse", according to CBS News That same report also told use that there were "A number of options are under consideration including "the possibility of a court challenge," Holder said in response to questions on the Arizona law". The article also states that President Barry "...has instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona law". It also says that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That was on April 27, 2010.

The law is ten pages long. Have you ever seen how these things are wrote up? For some reason, legislation is always written in a four inch wide column (if that) that has two inch margins on the top and bottom of the page. And it's always double-spaced. It might even be triple spaced. And it's not like it's a teeny-tiny font either. No, it's a fair sized font and they format the stuff on the page like it's a Reader's Digest Condensed Version for the Blind. You can read it from at least five feet away with no trouble at all....with dim lighting! The point here is that while it may be ten pages long, there are probably only 50 words on each page. (Mind you, the health care bill was over two thousand pages long.)

Fast forward to May 13, 2010 at some sort of hearing that Eric Holder was being questioned at. That's over two full weeks since Mr. Holder voiced his concern about this law. That's over two full weeks since we were told that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That's over two full weeks since we were told that President Barry has instructed the Justice Department to check out the law. That would be the Justice Department that Eric Holder is technically over. Ten pages. Over two weeks. Do you see where this is going? Of course you do.

Mr. Holder has not actually read the law. That is correct. He hasn't read it. Now, I realize that being Attorney General of the United States is a job that would probably tend to keep you pretty busy. But if you're telling me that you can't read ten pages of legislation over the course of at least two weeks, then there's something wrong with you and I seriously question your ability to serve in the capacity for which you were appointed. My God, man, what's wrong with you?

According to Fox News it was during these hearings that a one Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas (also now known as "my hero"), asked Holder if he had read the law. Holder responding weakly by stating, "I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it." Luckily Rep. Poe offered to give Mr. Holder his copy of the law. It's not like it's a difficult document to lay your hands on. Oh, but this gets better. Or worse. Hard to say. Hard. To. Say.

"When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law." Um, wait. What now?

He's going by what he has "been able to glean" from the freaking newspapers and television and talking to folks?! Why hasn't he just started consulting bloggers?! Or those folks at those rallies? Why don't you just read the freaking thing yourself?! He can read, right? I mean, I'm kind of assuming that's some sort of a qualification or a necessity in order to be the Attorney General of the most powerful nation on the planet, but I'm kinda starting to wonder.

It's not even so much that he hasn't read it that just burns my toast. It's that he is SO SURE that it MUST be racist or have this HUGE potential for abuse that he's already talking about challenging it in court! Hey, Mr. Holder! What say that before you go all full blown spending taxpayer money on some sort of legal challenge to something, how about you read the damned thing first, all right? Yes, I'm actually suggesting that you READ all ten pages! Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you compare those ten pages to the federal immigration laws on enforcement and see how much they differ?! Guess what? They're almost identical, you jackass.

While I'm glad that Rep. Poe brought this up and got him to admit that he hadn't actually read the law himself and was relying on the town crier to bring him up to speed, I really wish he had held his feet to the fire a little bit more and asked him WHY he hadn't read the whopping ten pages of legislation by now. That would have been great. It's times like these when I miss Tim Russert. He would have had Holder on Meet the Press and would have asked him why he didn't read it. I long for the days when there was at least one journalist out there that would do that. These days, however, we'd be lucky if someone were to ask Eric Holder why he has such a creepy moustache. :: sigh :: Yep, I miss Tim Russert. Heart disease kills, kids! Keep yourselves healthy.

This video here shows Eric Holder being interviewed by the adorable, extremely capable, and frequently scarf-wearing Jake Tapper. In it, Tapper asks him why he doesn't think that the Arizona immigration enforcement law is a good idea. Keep in mind that the answer that he gives is one that he has formulated based on what he's read in some newspapers and heard on TV. Below, you will find the video of Eric Holder at that hearing when he admits to Rep. Poe (still known as "my hero") that he hasn't read the whopping 10 page bill. I think it's somewhere around the 1:00 mark if you want to skip ahead. While I really like Rep. Poe, he tends to drone whenst speaking.

moreless